High Court Judgments of Public Interest

Sentencing for two charges of drugged driving causing injury and one of drugged driving causing death.

Held:

1. Starting point of 5.5 years warranted in light of aggravating features which included high THC concentration paired with alcohol, poor driving over a considerable period, known poor condition of vehicle, licence suspended at the time, on bail for driving while suspended at the time.

2. No adjustment for relevant but somewhat dated previous offending.

3. 10 per cent reduction for remorse and limited rehabilitation prospects.

4. 20 per cent reduction for guilty plea following "on the record" offer to plead to charge eventually filed by amendment.

5. Four-month reduction for 10 months spent on EM bail.

6. No reparation order made - no prospect of it being paid.

7. Outstanding fines remitted in light of prison sentence imposed.

8 .Sentences for three charges to be served concurrently. End sentence 3.5 years. Disqualification from driving for 4 years.

Sentencing for manslaughter, assault with intent to injure and assault on a person in a family relationship. Mr Ali killed his nine-and-a-half- month-old baby with a single blow to the abdomen, consistent with a punch, kick or stomp after a loss of temper. Was previously violent against partner.

Held: starting point of 9 years' imprisonment for manslaughter. Aggravating factors in Taueki of extreme violence, serious injury, vulnerability and breach of trust. Uplift of 10 months' for offending against partner. Discounts for youth, background, guilty plea, efforts at rehabilitation and remorse. Five-month discount for time spent on EM bail. End sentence of six years' imprisonment. On the charge of assault with intent to injure and assault on a person in a family relationship, seven months imprisonment. On the charge of assault on a person in a family relationship, three months imprisonment. All sentences to be served concurrently.

Sentencing for murder and other offences committed during escape immediately afterwards.

Held:

1. sentence of life imprisonment for murder (not manifestly unjust)
2. 17-year minimum period of imprisonment imposed because of the highly callous nature of the offending (s 104, Sentencing Act 2002), which callousness was primarily demonstrated by defendant's post-killing conduct.
3. imposition of the 17-year minimum period not manifestly unjust given the notional minimum period of imprisonment that would have been appropriate independent of s 104 would approximate 17 years (with several aggravating factors).
4. sentenced to a concurrent term of five years' imprisonment for arson
5. sentenced to a concurrent term of two years' imprisonment for converting two vehicles
6. sentenced to a concurrent term of one months' imprisonment for dangerous driving
7. order made disqualifying from driving for 12 months for dangerous driving
8. order made disqualifying from driving for 6 months for failing to stop while driving dangerously (cumulative on the 12 months).

Sentencing of three defendants for sexual violation by rape. Mr B and Mr O convicted of one charge of rape as principal and two charges of rape as party. Mr S convicted of rape as principal. Defendants applied for permanent name suppression.

Held: Starting point 13 years' imprisonment for Mr B and Mr O. Aggravating factors include premeditation, victim vulnerability, harm to the victim, scale, and presence of multiple offenders. Starting point of 11 years' imprisonment for Mr S. Aggravating factors include knowledge of victim's vulnerability, harm to the victim and presence of multiple offenders. Twenty per cent discount applied to each defendant to recognise their youth, otherwise good character, and prospect of rehabilitation. No minimum period of imprisonment.

End sentences for Mr B and Mr O of 10 years, five months' imprisonment. End sentence for Mr S of eight years, 10 months' imprisonment.

Application for permanent name suppression declined. Accepted that the defendants meet the threshold of extreme hardship. However, the public interest favoured an exercise of discretion that allowed publication.

Successful judicial review. Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) challenged Royal Commission into Abuse in Care’s standalone case study into JW faith which formed part of 2024 final report. JWs argued case study breached freedom of religion under NZ Bill of Rights Act (BORA), breached right to natural justice and outside scope of terms of reference. Held, case study did not breach BORA. Commission entitled to investigate practices likely to harm vulnerable members. No breach of natural justice. But case study unlawful as it went beyond examination of abuse “in care” and focused primarily on harmful practices outside care context. HC declared case study unlawful as it exceeded terms of reference.

Sentencing for murder and strangulation. Mr Leona stabbed the deceased approximately 20 times with a knife at the back of a bus. Mr Leona then went to a family friend's address, breaking into the home and strangling the victim.

Held: sentenced to life imprisonment. Starting minimum period of imprisonment of 14 years. Aggravating factors of use of a weapon, brutality, vulnerability and to some degree the harm suffered by witnesses and family. Brutality, cruelty, and callousness engaged under s 104. However, it would be manifestly unjust to impose an MPI of 17 years' imprisonment. Mr Leona was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of his offending, although this was linked to his consumption of methamphetamine. Uplift of eight months' for strangulation charge. Mitigating factors of guilty plea, remorse, background and addiction, and interests of Mr Leona's children. End sentence of life imprisonment with MPI of 12 years'.

Sentencing for one historical charge of rape. The defendant was already serving a sentence of preventive
detention for extensive sexual offending, and life imprisonment for murder. The Court considered whether
imposing a further finite sentence, which would extend the parole eligibility date, would be consistent with the
totality principle.

HELD: The appropriate sentence was 10 years of imprisonment.

Sentence of life imprisonment with minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years imposed for charge of murder (Crimes Act 1961, s 168). Defendant, M, entered victim's sleep-out with co-defendant, L, to rob O of methamphetamine. M presented firearm and threatened O. O shot in head. Jury found discharge of firearm intentional; M guilty of murder. L convicted of manslaughter ([2025] NZHC 3270).

Held, life sentence not manifestly unjust (Sentencing Act, s 102).

Held, s 104(1A)(c) and (d) engaged. Murder committed in O's dwelling and in commission of serious offence. 17 year MPI required unless manifestly unjust.

Held, MPI of 14 years appropriate if not for s 104. Offending similar to Clarke [2021] NZCA 151; small discount appropriate for youth and effect of undiagnosed auditory processing disorder.

Held, not satisfied MPI of 17 years manifestly unjust.

Application for judicial review. The applicants submitted the policy documents the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have established in response to the relevant statutory duties do not comply with the requirement to avoid prejudicing the country's reputation and are to that extent unlawful. The Court found the policy documents did not identify with sufficient clarity the standards and procedures the respondent would comply with, in a way that enabled consistent application and review.

HELD: the application for judicial review was granted. The Court made the following declaration that:

(a) part nine of the statement of investment policies, standards, and procedures; and

(b) the sustainable investment framework

do not comply with the requirements of ss 58(2)(c) and 61 (d) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and are unreasonable and unlawful.

Sentencing on the charge of murder. 

Result: sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 17 and a half years. Firearms Prohibition Order made under S 39A of the Arms Act 1987 and reparation ordered of $8,271 to the deceased's family members. 

Appeal against conviction and sentence following judge-alone trial on a charge of failing to exercise due diligence as an officer of Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) giving rise to a risk of serious injury or death under ss 44 and 48(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) – in particular, failing to:

(a) take reasonable steps to ensure that there was a clearly documented, effectively implemented, and appropriate exclusion zone around operating cranes; and
(b) take reasonable steps to verify the provisions of the relevant resources and processes specified.

The charge followed the death of a worker at the Port of Auckland when a shipping container fell on him as he was lashing containers on board the MV Constantinos. The appellant was at the time the CEO of POAL and subject to a duty to exercise due diligence to ensure POAL as a “person conducting a business or undertaking” (PCBU) complied with its separate duties under HSWA. The appellant was sentenced to a fine of $130,000 and ordered to pay costs of $60,000 under s 152 of the HSWA.

Grounds of appeal against conviction included:

(1) the prosecution’s mistaken reliance on Australian cases considering repealed statutes with a reverse onus on an officer;
(2) the prosecution’s lead expert relying on a paper-based review rather than undertaking interviews with staff and a thorough investigation;
(3) focusing on an alleged need to develop best-practice systems, and a CEO having “ultimate responsibility” for “systems leadership”, concepts and obligations which are not referenced in s 44 of HSWA, and thereby making the appellant a proxy for POAL and its separate failings.

Counsel for the appellant identified a number of claimed errors made by the trial Judge and submitted they compounded on one another which led him to ignore relevant evidence, dismiss defence witnesses and overlook a lack of crucial evidence, essentially overlooking s 44(2) of HSWA.

HELD: For the reasons given, there was no miscarriage of justice and the conviction appeal is dismissed. In relation to the sentence appeal, the Judge did not err in law by using the culpability factors from Stumpmaster. The mandatory s 151 factors in HSWA apply to convictions under s 48 irrespective of the duty breached – but the application of s 151 depends on the breach of duty in issue. While the starting point of $140,000 may have been stern and the reduction of $10,000 was not generous, they were not outside the appropriate range. The costs award was also in range. The overall packet of sanctions was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence is also dismissed.

Interlocutory application by plaintiff for a direction that proceeding be set down for an urgent fixture. Cross-application by defendant for an interim stay of the proceeding. Substantive proceeding relates to Crown’s obligations under 1997 Deed of Settlement and Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. Plaintiff sought three limbs of declaratory relief relating to: breach of Settlement; breach of s 4 Conservation Act 1987; breach of legitimate expectation of plaintiff. Interim stay sought primarily on basis the principles of Parliamentary privilege and non-interference are engaged.

HELD: Relevant Bill constitutes proceedings in Parliament; protected by privilege and by the non-interference principle; abuse of process of the Court for the Court be asked to engage in consideration of the proposed legislation. Stay sought by the defendant granted. Plaintiff’s application for urgent fixture falls away.

Summary: Defendant sentenced after being found guilty of manslaughter. The defendant stabbed the victim after being punched by him in an altercation outside the defendant's house.

Held: Starting point of seven and a half years' imprisonment reflecting the use, in anger, of a lethal weapon resulting in the loss of the victim's life. End sentence of five years' imprisonment after reductions for offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, remorse, and impact of imprisonment on child.

Application for judicial review or declarations regarding the District Court decision voiding the 2025 election for the Papatoetoe Subdivision of the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board. 

Held: Application dismissed. Section 103 of the Local Electoral Act precludes removal of a determination to the High Court by "any procedure". This has effect to preclude the High Court from reviewing matters connected to the factual inquiry undertaken by the District Court Judge. The applicants' application as it relates to the Judge's factual inferences and inquiry are barred. 

Other grounds of judicial review asserting errors in the standard of proof adopted, misconstruction of the jurisdiction and aspects of the allegations of breach of natural justice associated with notice of the petition and its grounds are not barred. However, these errors are not established. 

The applicants' conduct is not impugned at all by the District Court. No allegation that the applicants were involved in misuse of voting papers. Declarations are not required and would not be appropriate.

The High Court has made orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 in a case where home-owners found $232,400 cash concealed in the ceiling of their residence they had recently purchased. They handed the money to the Police. Evidence established the cash was probably “tainted” in the sense it was derived from drug dealing. Police sought a forfeiture order over all the cash. The home-owners sought an order entitling them to all the cash. The parties reached an agreement for approval by the Court under the Act. The Court has approved a settlement whereby the cash vests in the Crown but the Crown is to pay the homeowners $40,000.

Representative proceeding brought by the New Zealand College of Midwives Inc (College), on behalf of 1,473 LMC midwives, against 1the Attorney-General representing the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for breach of contract, breach of obligations to take all necessary steps and work together in good faith, equitable estoppel, quantum meruit, and unlawful discrimination on basis of gender under s 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights). Alleged commitment to pay LMC midwives fair and reasonable remuneration underpinned all claims.

Lead maternity care (LMC) midwives paid under capped, modular Notices issued by the Crown. Notices relevant to this proceeding issued under s 51 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 in 2007 and 2021.

In 2017, College abandoned judicial review proceedings against the Ministry in return for promises under a series of six agreements made between 2016 and 2018. Ministry made a series of contractual promises under the final 2018 Settlement Agreement. College believed those promises were to be implemented by 1 July 2020.

First cause of action for breach of 2018 Settlement Agreement. Attorney-General denied existence of substantive obligations under the Agreement and raised series of constitutional issues, asserting Agreement could not bind the Crown.

Held, Agreement enforceable against the Crown. Official who signed Agreement on behalf of Ministry had actual, apparent and implied authority to do so; Agreement not subject to further approvals; Agreement did not impermissibly fetter Crown's future freedom to act.

Held, Agreement required Crown to implement a national midwifery contract by 1 July 2020, pay LMC midwives a fair and reasonable service price by July 2020, and provide ability for midwives to renegotiate fees paid to them on annual basis. Text of Agreement, context and subsequent conduct of Crown all supported this finding. Failure of the Crown to call certain key witnesses gave rise to an inference that their evidence would not have assisted the Crown's case: Ithaca (Custodians) Ltd v Perry Corporation [2004] 1 NZLR 731 (CA)).

Held, Crown failed to meet these obligations and breached the Agreement.

Second cause of action for breach of obligations under 2018 Settlement Agreement to take all necessary steps to fulfil its terms and to work together with College in good faith.

Held, obligations both express and implicit in Agreement.

Held, Ministry breached those obligations. Circumstances such as COVID-19 pandemic, Health and Disability System Review and political arrangements did not justify failures.

Third cause of action for equitable estoppel. Plaintiffs claimed Crown represented fair and reasonable price free from gender-based discrimination would be paid from 1 July 2020.

Held, equitable estoppel available against Crown (Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394); representations clear and unequivocal; plaintiffs relied on representations; reliance reasonable until 1 July 2020.

Held, continued reliance not reasonable after 1 July 2020; individual midwives had not established detriment. Equitable estoppel claim not made out.

Fourth cause of action for quantum meruit based on "free acceptance" (Morning Star (St Lukes Garden Apartments) Ltd v Canam Construction Ltd CA90/05, 8 August 2006).

Held, expectation of payment of fair and reasonable service price was not for those services. No evidence of expectation that price would be paid retrospectively. Quantum meruit claim not made out.

Fifth cause of action was for unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender under s 19 of Bill of Rights. Two step analysis from Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, as framed in J v Attorney-General [2023] NZCA 660, applied.

Held, LMC midwives discriminated against on basis of gender. Obstetricians and GPs suitable comparators. Differential treatment between LMC midwives and obstetricians/GPs. Differential treatment "on ground of' gender as cannot solely be explained by other factors, so gender remains "material ingredient" (McAlister v Air New Zealand Ltd [2009] NZSC 78 per Tipping J). Differential treatment imposes material disadvantage on LMC midwives, in form of financial detriment, lack of autonomy and lack of self-worth.

Held, limit on right to be free from discrimination not demonstrably justified under s 5 of Bill of Rights.

Held, a declaration not an adequate remedy for fifth cause of action (discrimination). Award of damages necessary as incentive to avoid repetition of the breach. $1,000 awarded to each LMC midwife to recognise injury to dignity as result of breach, and to vindicate right (Association of Ontario Midwives v Ontario (Health and Long-term Care) 2020 HRTO 165 considered).

Held, appropriate remedy for first and second (contractual) causes of action to attempt to restore plaintiffs to position if breaches of contract had not occurred. Where plaintiffs' loss not capable of precise calculation, Court entitled to make reasonable assumptions (Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB)). Having regard to the parties' Co-design work, two PwC reports and a benchmarking exercise and a discrete choice model exercise carried out by the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, the Court determined a fair and reasonable service price.

Held, fair and reasonable take home pay, as at 1 July 2020, for a notional LMC midwife working 1.0 FTE was $170,340. Figure to be adjusted for successive years based on Labour Cost Index. 

Held, LMC midwives must be paid the fair and reasonable service price, backdated from 1 July 2020.