Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
24 June 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)
All years
Case name
John Kenneth Slavich v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Fraud – Admissibility of Evidence – Judicature Act 1908 – Whether miscarriage of justice established by way of Court of Appeal’s alleged failure to consider all points raised on appeal – Whether evidence wrongly admitted – Whether Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction in its evaluation of the evidence.[2009] NZCA 188 CA 461/2007 15 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 August 2009
_________________________
The recall application is dismissed.
15 March 2016
_____________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of
16 April 2020 (Slavich v R [2020] NZSC 34) is dismissed.
21 June 2024
10 August 2009
_________________________
The recall application is dismissed.
15 March 2016
_____________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of
16 April 2020 (Slavich v R [2020] NZSC 34) is dismissed.
21 June 2024
Recall judgment
SLAVICH v R SC 52/2009 [13 September 2011] (PDF, 45 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SLAVICH V R SC 52/2009 10 August 2009 (PDF, 13 KB)
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v R [2020] NZSC 34 [16 April 2020] (PDF, 149 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v R [2024] NZSC 72 [21 June 2024] (PDF, 194 KB)
Case name
Maia Rongonui v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2009
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Mr Rongonui was convicted of one count of sexual violation by unlawful connection and one of assault with intent to commit rape – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the complainant’s evidence that she had told her friend what occurred after the incident did not fall within s 35 of the Evidence Act dealing with previous consistent statements because evidence was not given of anything actually said by the complainant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge was correct to allow the prosecutor to use a witness statement to refresh the memory of a witness and to allow cross-examination of the witness on the grounds of hostility[2009] NZCA 279 CA 736/2008 2 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 September 2009
___________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. Order for new trial. Reasons to be given at a later date. 2
7 November 2009
_____________________________
Reasons given 23 July 2010
21 September 2009
___________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. Order for new trial. Reasons to be given at a later date. 2
7 November 2009
_____________________________
Reasons given 23 July 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 November 2009 (PDF, 504 KB)
Media Releases
- media release rongonui 23 july new release (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Rongonui v R SC 66/2009 [21 September 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
RONGONUI v R SC 66/2009 [27 November 2009] (PDF, 170 KB)
Case name
Philip Wayne Hart v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – convictions for sexual offending – the trial judge acceded to an application by the Crown for a prior consistent statement of the complainant to be admitted in terms of s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 to rebut the assertion that the complainant’s evidence was fabricated in order to entitle her to ACC – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that defence counsel asserted recent invention on the part of the complainant and thus attacked the complainant’s veracity, opening the way to evidence on that topic under s 37 and also justifying an application by the Crown for an order that the complainant’s prior consistent statement was admissible under s 35(2) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the trial judge did not need to direct the jury on its use of the prior consistent statement because such statements, once admitted, are admissible for the truth of their contents under the Evidence Act 2006.[2009] NZCA 276 CA 609/2008 29 June 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
HART v R SC 74/2009 [23 July 2010] (PDF, 210 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 18 November 2009
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ.
Case name
The Queen v George Evans Gwaze
Case number
SC 93/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against case stated decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority erred in concluding that the trial Judge’s decision to allow inadmissible hearsay “evidence” was an error of fact rather than an error of law and that therefore the case stated provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 were not engaged – Whether the Court of Appeal President erred in concluding that the Crown could succeed on an appeal under ss 380 and 380 of the Crimes Act 1961 in this case only if “To set aside the acquittal and direct a new trial would not be an unacceptable derogation from the spirit of the rule against double jeopardy”.[2009] NZCA 430 CA 90/2009 24 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
23 November 2009
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the acquittals are quashed. B A new trial is directed under s 382(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. C A certified direction for new trial will issue to the Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch with the consequences provided for by ss 380(4) and 382(4) of the Crimes Act.
17 May 2010
23 November 2009
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the acquittals are quashed. B A new trial is directed under s 382(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. C A certified direction for new trial will issue to the Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch with the consequences provided for by ss 380(4) and 382(4) of the Crimes Act.
17 May 2010
Transcripts
- sc 93 2009 the queen v george evans gwaze (PDF, 539 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v GWAZE SC 93/2009 [23 November 2009] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
R v GWAZE SC 93/2009 [17 May 2010] (PDF, 167 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 February 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson J.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wei Feng Pan v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2009
Summary
Criminal – Offences relating to Class A drug – Appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings about the applicant’s involvement in the importation of drugs – Whether the admission of cell-site evidence was inadmissible as being more prejudicial than probative – Whether the Court of Appeal were correct to find that the trial could proceed with 10 jurors – Whether the Court of Appeal were correct to hold that the trial Judge had not misdirected the jury on the onus of proof, or on the motive of co-accused to lie – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant had a central role in the overall crime for the purposes of sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account mitigating factors – Whether the Court of Appeal had regard to principles of sentencing in the Sentencing Act 2002.[2009] NZCA 445 CA 770/2008 30 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 9 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WEI FENG PAN v R SC 100/2009 [9 February 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ghlenn Thomas Douglas Gollop v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against sentence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding without evidence to the required standard that the quantum of manufacture was 250g which materially effected the level of sentence in terms of s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the minimum term of imprisonment was justified when the appellant was not represented by counsel at sentencing, contrary to s 30 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2009] NZCA 486 CA 162/200 19 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2009
17 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GOLLOP v R SC 104/2009 [17 December 2009] (PDF, 38 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v The Minister of Justice
Case number
SC 113/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Judicial Review – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding Minister not obliged to take account of the appellant’s state of health and humanitarian concerns raised on appellant’ s behalf in making his decision under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 and Art 1 of the Extradition Treaty between Poland and New Zealand – Whether Court of Appeal gave inappropriate weight to evidence of appellant’s doctor and erred in concluding appellant’s ailments were not a basis on which to stop or delay an extradition.[2009] NZCA 570 CA 719/2009 4 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent. 11 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Johnathan Brian Irvine and others v John Douglas Wilson and others
Case number
SC 117/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – trusts and trustees – whether second and third appellants, when signing as trustees, can be personally liable under the Trust Deed – whether there was a breach of the Shareholders Agreement due to the failure to get Special Resolutions for significant borrowings and costs as required by the Business Plan specified in the Shareholders Agreement – whether there was a breach of the major transaction requirements of the Companies Act 1993 – additionally, estoppel argument raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to provide the appellants the opportunity to consider or provide evidence in opposition to this point.[2009] NZCA 569 CA 232/2009 7 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondents.
18 March 2010
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tere Moana Purea V Alan Stanley Perkins and Adrienne Rosemary Perkins
Case number
SC 119/2009
Summary
Civil appeal - Land Transfer Act 1952 – cross-appeal - the respondents sued for specific performance after the appellant failed to settle a house purchase due to a dispute with his daughter (Mrs Tangi-Tuake) over ownership which resulted in her lodging a caveat against the title of the property – whether the Court of Appeal determination that the finding of Asher J on the facts that it was supported by evidence that there was an agreement that in return for Mr Purea’s daughter taking responsibility for the mortgage and any outgoings and maintenance of the property, ownership would be transferred to her on repayment of then mortgage, was erroneous – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider that Asher J treated his finding of a constructive trust as if it was an express trust and gave no recognition of the Tangi-Tuakes’ interest in the property – whether the Court of Appeal decision is supported by the Tangi-Tuakes’ pleadings and in particular the way in which their pleadings have changed.[2009] NZCA 541 CA 365/2008 18 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd Respondent.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Paul Joseph Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 30/2008
Summary
High Court Gisborne CRN 2006 016 00325Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006 ss 28, 29 and 30 – admissibility of “scenario evidence” (evidence obtained by an investigative technique whereby police invite a suspect to participate with an undercover police officer in a constructed event designed to simulate criminal activity) – applicant made statements to undercover police officer posing as gang leader that were admitted in Court against him – whether, under s 29(4)(d), a threat, promise or representation must only be taken into account in determining whether a statement was influenced by oppression if it were made by a person in authority – further, whether evidence should be excluded for unreliability or improperly being obtained under s 28 and s 30 respectively.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CAMERON v R SC 30/2008 [1 August 2008] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
1 August 2008
Page 18 of 23