High Court Judgments of Public Interest

Application for leave to appeal on questions of law arising in District Court Judge alone trials resulting in convictions on charges under Trespass Act 1980. Convictions relate to protest occupation of pontoon in marine construction zone.

HELD:

1. The holder of a coastal permit issued under the Resource Management Act 1991 can lawfully exclude the entire public when reasonably necessary for the permit's purpose, including persons asserting entitlement to occupy the area as a matter of tikanga.

2. The District Court Judge's factual finding that ii was reasonably necessary to exclude the public from the pontoon within the construction zone not so clearly untenable as to amount to an error of law.

3. Any mistake by the appellants about whether they were entitled as a matter of tikanga to occupy the construction zone was a mistake in law rather than fact, incapable of giving rise to a defence of honest belief in facts or circumstances which would make their presence lawful.

RESULT: leave granted, proposed questions reframed under s 299 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and answered. Convictions upheld.

Application for urgent injunction restraining publication or use of data stolen in a cyber-attack on Manage My Health Ltd’s online patient portal. Held: strong case made out that patient data had been exfiltrated unlawfully and for the purpose of ransom.  Overall interests of justice clearly favoured protection of confidential information belonging to patient and GP practices in the circumstances.

Urgent without notice application, for orders requiring deletion and non-use/dissemination of confidential member information downloaded from online platform and listed for sale on dark web. Information would assist identity fraud.

HELD: application granted in terms addressed broadly, to those with unauthorised access to such data. Applicant’s inability to identify defendants no impediment. Prima facie case of breach of confidence and balance of convenience favour orders being granted.

Sentencing for murder in a case of transferred malice (seeking to kill one person and accidentally killing another).

Notional minimal period of imprisonment (MPl) under s 103 of the Sentencing Act - after taking aggravating and mitigating factors into account - set at 16 years.

Then held that one of the s 104 aggravating circumstances applied - unlawful entry into a dwelling - and that it would not be manifestly unjust to impose the 17-year MPl required in those circumstances under s 104.

Sentence of 17 years and six months’ imprisonment with eight years and nine months MPI for murder, concurrent with two years’ imprisonment for wounding with reckless disregard, and 15 months’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm and explosives. Defendant 19 years of age at time of offending. Despite presumption of life imprisonment for murder (Sentencing Act 2002, s 102), it would be manifestly unjust in this case: the murder was reckless not premeditated, youth, cognitive limitations and deprivation. MPI imposed of 50 per cent of finite sentence with reference to analogous cases.

TVNZ's publication of its 3 July 2021 broadcast falsely meant an insufficiency in emergency stop buttons at Talley's Ashburton site "was known to, and raised by workers with, Talley's management but not addressed", such meaning being not materially different from the relevant imputation pleaded by Talley's. By "not addressed", it was a meaning tending to lessen, and giving rise to "'more than minor' harm" to, Talley's reputation among some prospective and then-current Talley's employees. But, because Talley's had not proved the publication had caused, or is likely to cause, pecuniary loss to Talley's, the proceeding fails. Had Talley's proved any pecuniary loss caused by the publication, the publication nonetheless was TVNZ's responsible communication on a matter of public interest, meaning TVNZ still would have succeeded.

Prisoners are regularly being denied their minimum daily entitlement to one hour of physical exercise in the open air, in Units 12 and 13 at Auckland Prison. The plaintiffs, 69 prisoners at Auckland Prison, brought an application for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to comply with his legal duty to ensure prisoners receive their minimum entitlement under the Corrections Act 2004 to physical exercise.

Granting the plaintiffs' application, the Court held that the minimum entitlement to physical exercise may only be denied if there is an emergency in the prison, the security of the prison or the health and safety of any person is threatened. These exceptions do not cover situations where the reason for denying the entitlement is due to inadequate facilities or staff resourcing limitations.

The Court made an order in the nature of mandamus against the Chief Executive that: Subject only to s 69(2) and (4)(aa), the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections is required to comply with s 70 of the Corrections Act 2004 in administration of the conditions of detention in Units 12 and 13 at Auckland Prison.

("Mandamus" is an order from the Court, based on royal authority, to perform a public duty. Disobedience to a mandatory order can amount to a contempt of court, punishable by fine or imprisonment.)

Jarrod Dent killed one person and wounded five others in January 2019. The jury returned a verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity on the six charges in August 2025. Mr Dent was made a special patient pursuant to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The order was necessary to protect the public, and to ensure Mr Dent received adequate treatment over a long period of time.

Fraud sentencing; two representative obtaining by deception charges each; husband and wife deceived whanau, friends and members of local Te Ao Maori, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other communities in a Ponzi scheme; 55 direct victims; defendants obtained nearly $4 million; total financial loss to victims of over $2.6 million over a seven and a half year period of offending.

Held: no deduction made for prior good character as character enabled their offending and given period of offending; no deduction made for breach of rights, vindication provided by finding search warrant was unlawful and evidence obtained by search warrant alone was to be excluded; no deduction made for impact of incarceration on Mrs Tuira's grandchild and mother; starting point for Mr Tuira of seven years and nine months' imprisonment; 12.5 per cent deduction for guilty pleas; five per cent deduction for remorse and participation in restorative justice; end sentence of six years and four months' imprisonment; MPI of 45 per cent; starting point for Mrs Tuira of seven years' imprisonment; 12.5 per cent deduction for guilty pleas; three per cent deduction for remorse and participation in restorative justice; 10 per cent deduction for personal background factors and relational coercion; end sentence of five years and two months' imprisonment; no MPI; no reparation orders made.

Sentencing – the offenders had been found guilty of manslaughter – the charge related to an incident in which the two defendants travelled late at night to a rural address to find a person who had been seen wearing clothing with gang insignia on it when he was not a patched member of the gang – the purpose of the visit was to retrieve the clothing in question and to inflict physical violence on the person who had been seen wearing it – as soon as the person came to the door he was attacked by both defendants and suffered unsurvivable brain injury – starting point eight and a half years' imprisonment – uplift of three months for one offender to reflect the fact that the offending had occurred whilst he was subject to a sentence of intensive supervision – discount of 20 per cent to reflect the fact that both offenders had offered to plead guilty to manslaughter prior to trial – further discounts for other mitigating factors reduced the end sentence for one offender to six years, three months' imprisonment and for the other offender to six years, six months' imprisonment – no minimum term of imprisonment ordered.

Sentencing of Mr Richards (as principal) and Mr Haenga (as a party) for the murder of Hori Gage. Sentence of life imprisonment imposed for both offenders. Section 104(1)(e) engaged. For Mr Richards, a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) under s 103 would be 17 years, reduced by six months to account for personal factors. In the circumstances, an MPI of 17 years would not be manifestly unjust and reflects the seriousness and callousness of the offending, and the significance of the need for deterrence. Mr Richards sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 17 years. For Mr Haenga, an MPI under s 103 would be 14 years, reduced by one year to account for personal factors. In the circumstances, and given Mr Haenga's significantly lesser culpability, it would be manifestly unjust to impose a 17-year MPI. Mr Haenga sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 13 years.

Sentencing for motor manslaughter x 3 (and related charges). Defendant failed to stop at a railway crossing, drove between the barriers and crossed the tracks as the train was upon him. Collision took the lives of three passengers and seriously injured a fourth. Defendant under the influence of methamphetamine and disqualified from driving. Other aggravators too. Starting point of 10 years and eight months. Final sentence of eight years' imprisonment with a minimum period of half.

Sentencing for manslaughter under s 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP Act). Based on the health assessors' reports, the Court is satisfied that the offender is mentally disordered, and the offender's mental impairment requires the compulsory treatment in both the offender's interests and for the safety of the public. If the end sentence was one of imprisonment pursuant to s 34(1)(a)(i) the offender would be eligible for immediate release due to time served. Given the complex mental health needs of the offender an order under s 34(1 )(a)(i) is therefore not appropriate, and instead an order under s 34(1 )(b)(i) should be made. The social circumstances of the offender are not adequate for the offender to be treated as an outpatient. In the circumstances of this case, and with consent of the offender, an order is made under s 34(1 )(b)(i) of the CPMIP Act such that the offender is to be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 with the order taking effect as a compulsory treatment order as an inpatient.

Ms Thompson-Bell was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment on one charge of theft by a person in a special relationship. Over the course of two years she had used her position as a finance administrator for a community trust to channel approximately half a million dollars to herself. Ms Thompson-Bell was a first offender. She has five children and is pregnant with her sixth. There was no apparent motivation for the offending other than personal greed. The sentencing Judge adopted a starting point of five years' imprisonment for the offending and reduced that by 55 per cent to recognise Ms Thompson-Bell’s guilty plea (25 per cent); the impact of imprisonment on her children (15 per cent); her previous good character (5 per cent); her remorse (5 per cent); and reparation already paid (5 per cent) as agreed at a restorative justice conference. Ms Thompson-Bell appealed arguing that the starting point was too high and/or the Judge allowed inadequate reductions for her previous good character and her remorse and participation in a restorative justice conference.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. In all the circumstances the starting point could not be considered out of range though it was towards the top of it. In respect of good character, the Judge did err in stating that having no previous convictions is only a neutral factor however this error did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Judge had still awarded 5 per cent for previous good character and overall, the reductions totalling 55 per cent were generous. Reducing the sentence any further on appeal would strike at the heart of the integrity of the sentence for very serious offending. There was also no basis for increasing the reduction allowed for remorse and participating in restorative justice on appeal.

Sentencing on pleas to a representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and a charge of sexual conduct by doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years of age for habitual offending against two distantly-related young girls at family gatherings. 

Aggravating factors of offending - serious long-term emotional and psychological harm resulting, comprehensive abuse of position of trust, repetitive nature of offending, degradation and cruelty in isolating the girl and directing her actions, victim vulnerability, premeditation, offending as a continuation of a propensity for such offending - means culpability solidly within band two or lower end of band three of R v AM (CA27 /2009) [2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750. Cusp of the two bands taken, a nine year starting point. One year uplift for prior offending of a similar nature. 10 percent discount for guilty plea. No discount for contended deprived background. End determinate sentence of nine years imprisonment (broken down, six for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and three for sexual conduct with a child under 12 years of age). 

Minimum period of imprisonment of five years imposed because defendant's experience in custody alone seems unlikely to deter, the prospect of release into the community perhaps as soon as late next year insufficient to hold defendant accountable, or properly to denounce conduct, or to protect the community from the defendant. 

Satisfied the above determinate sentence otherwise to be imposed would not provide adequate protection for society from defendant as unreliable for post-release supervision. Determinate sentence therefore not preferable to a preventive detention sentence. Sentenced to preventive detention. 

Murder of 2 children. Jury rejected defence of insanity. Section 104 engaged starting point MPI of 22 years. Reduced to 17 years to take account of mental state at time. Sentence of life imprisonment with 17 years MPI. Neither life imprisonment nor MPI of 17 years manifestly unjust. Order under CPMIP Act to be detained as special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Appeal against sentence for offending under the Insolvency Act 2006. Starting point of four years correct although, on appeal, the Court would have imposed a starting point of two years and six months on both concealing charges and applied a higher uplift for the managing a business charge. Uplifts applied for personal aggravating circumstances well principled and in range. No discount for psychological issues as the evidence is not fresh, it does not represent reduced moral culpability for the offending nor would his mental health issues require a reduced sentence as it may be unduly punitive. The Judge correctly imposed a cumulative sentence on an earlier set of offending as two distinct sets of offending that occurred at different times and inflicted loss on different groups of people, with the present offending occurring while subject to EM bail on the earlier offending. Further 18-month adjustment for totality as notional cumulative sentence disproportionate to the gravity of both sets of offending and beyond what is necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing in the circumstances. Cumulative sentence amended to six years and eight months. Appeal allowed in part. 

Sentencing - the offender had pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter - the charge was laid after the brakes on a truck the offender was driving failed and it ran downhill, killing a road construction worker who was working in its path - the offender should not have been driving the vehicle as it had been deemed not roadworthy six years earlier and should not have been on the road - HELD that the aggravating factors in the offending justified a starting point of four years imprisonment - discount of eight months (approximately 15 per cent) to reflect late guilty plea - further discount of seven months (or just over 15 per cent) to reflect remorse, rehabilitative measures the offender had undertaken and an emotional harm reparation payment in the sum of $20,000 the offender had agreed to pay to the victim's family - end sentence of three years imprisonment.

Defendant was charged with attempted murder after deliberately hitting a cyclist with his car.  He entered a plea of not guilty by virtue of insanity.  

Held: Defendant was labouring under a disease of the mind at the time of the attack, in terms of the definition of insanity under s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961. This resulted in a finding that the relevant acts were proven but that the defendant was not criminally responsible for those acts on account of insanity, under s 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CP(MIP) Act). 

Held: Disposition order made that the defendant be treated as a patient under s 25(1)(a) of the CP(MIP) Act and s 30 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and be detained as an inpatient for the purposes of treatment. 

Sentencing of Mark Jefferson for the manslaughter of his close friend and long-time mentor Stuart Stobie. Mr Jefferson had misidentified Mr Stobie as a deer through a thermal scope on a rifle while hunting in the Kaiangaroa Forest at 1 am and had shot and killed him. Mr Jefferson and Mr Stobie were hunting illegally in the forest at the time. Furthermore, Mr Jefferson did not have a firearms license and by venturing into the bush and firing the gun unsupervised he was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. The additional aggravating features were failure to identify his target or check the firing zone; use of cannabis beforehand; initially lying to the police that Mr Stobie had accidentally shot himself and the extensive wider victim impact. 

A starting point of five years' imprisonment was adopted. Three months was added on for Mr Jefferson's eight previous firearms licensing convictions. Reductions totally 27 months' for guilty plea (25%), clear and genuine remorse and participation in restorative justice (15%) and, to a very limited extent previous good character, as demonstrated in the small Minginui community, (3%) were allowed bringing the final sentence to three years' imprisonment.