Court of Appeal Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the Court of Appeal in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the Judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances (PDF, 211 KB). If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
Criminal law — Sentence appeal — Murder — Minimum period of imprisonment
The appeal is allowed. The minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years is set aside and replaced with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years.
Mr Salt was found guilty by jury of the murder of Tofimua Matagi. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 12 years. He appeals his MPI on the basis it is manifestly excessive, as the starting point was too high and insufficient weight was placed on his personal mitigating factors.
Is the MPI of 12 years manifestly excessive? Held: Yes.
The starting point of 12 and a half years was manifestly excessive when compared with other similar cases and considering the aggravating factors of the offending. The Judge’s approach to discounts for personal mitigating factors was correct.
Appeal — Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 — interim orders — decision
Appeal dismissed.
On 17 November 2025, on the advice of the Minister of Health (the Minister), the Medicines (Restriction on Prescribing Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Analogues) Amendment Regulations 2025 (the Regulations) were made by Order in Council. Their effect is to ban new prescriptions for gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, commonly known as “puberty blockers”, to treat gender dysphoria or gender incongruence in children or adolescents. The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Incorporated (PATHA) challenges the validity of the Regulations in the High Court. PATHA also sought interim orders directing the Minister to take all necessary steps to suspend the Regulations pending further order of the Court. The High Court declined that application but declared that the Crown should take no steps to enforce the Regulations pending determination of the application for judicial review. PATHA appeals that decision.
Issue: Is the relief ordered by the High Court ineffective to preserve PATHA’s position?
Held: No. It would be extraordinary for any public body to facilitate a complaint about the prescription of puberty blockers as unethical because it is illegal, when doing so would disregard the intent of an order of the High Court which has, in effect, suspended the enforcement of the Regulations. The same applies to private prosecution. Any other view would be an unduly narrow and technical interpretation of the rule of law.