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
Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the evidence from the complainant’ s mother was not expert evidence.[2013] NZCA 593 CA 100/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 June 2014 (PDF, 313 KB)
Media Releases
- sc 2 2014 taiatini v r media release (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
KWK v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Improperly obtained evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the availability of other investigatory techniques under s 30(3)(e) of the Evidence Act was a factor favouring admissibility of improperly obtained evidence – Whether s 30(3)(e) requires the person(s) exercising the unlawful search to have knowledge of the other investigatory techniques not involving any breach of rights.[2013] NZCA 616 CA 456/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 March 2014
6 March 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2013] NZCA 616 not available online
Case name
CFC v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the evidence from a search of the appellants’ property is admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[2013] NZCA 653 CA 534/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
P C v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the evidence from a search of the appellants’ property is admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[2013] NZCA 653 CA 534/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
BRM v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 92 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor did not breach their cross-examination duties – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in relation to appropriate jury directions was wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law partial defence of excessive force is not recognised in New Zealand.[2013] NZCA 657 CA 260/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jeffrey Ugochukwu Orji v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision that a defence of reasonable excuse was not available under s 142(1)(d)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to admit new evidence.[2013] NZCA 629 CA 167/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 21 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
RJL v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 122(2)(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the District Court Judge was entitled to decline to give a warning under s 122(2)(e) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s ruling that the photograph evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the way the District Court Judge restricted the manner in which the applicant gave evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice.[2013] NZCA 191 CA 707/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal out of time is granted (L (CA707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 191).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted
L v R [2014] NZSC 107 [8 August 2014] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
L (SC 28/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 53 [7 May 2015] (PDF, 405 KB)
Case name
Paul Anthony Blair v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal –Evidence Act 2006, ss 46 and 126 – Whether voice identification evidence was admitted at trial contrary to the provisions of s 46 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admitting the voice identification evidence did not materially affect the result and therefore there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the case against the defendant did not depend “substantially” on the voice identification evidence within the meaning of the word contained at section 126.[2014] NZCA 101 CA 92/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.
21 July 2014
21 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PAUL ANTHONY BLAIR v R [2014] NZSC 92 21 July 2014 (PDF, 43 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385 Crimes Act 1961 – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted an adjournment – Whether the Court of Appeal pre-determined the case – Whether relevant evidence was not properly considered by the Court of Appeal – Whether expert evidence was wrongly admitted at trial. [2014] NZCA 83 CA 101/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Kohai v R [2014] NZCA 83).
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
Case name
Robert Alfred Stevenson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 66/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(2)(a) and New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990, s 25(h) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus – Whether s 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 applies in this case – Whether s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 impacts on the interpretation of s 14(2)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering all relevant evidence.[2014] NZCA 308 CA 321/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 September 2014
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
18 September 2014
____________
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.
25 September 2014
4 September 2014
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
18 September 2014
____________
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.
25 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Page 8 of 23