The Crown sought an extended supervision order due to Mr Paniora's history of serious violent offending and very high risk of serious violent recidivism. Mr Paniora's previous offending, drive to commit violence, and inability to selfregulate satisfies the threshold for an ESO. Although the risk assessment models can only predict risk for a five year period, Mr Paniora exhibits many risk factors that are unlikely to change over time. The maximum ten year period is therefore justified. There will also be a maximum 12 month intensive monitoring condition.

JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION. The applicant challenged decisions of the Auckland Council and Albert-Eden Local Boardn (AELB) regarding the proposed redevelopment of Chamberlain Park Golf Course. Four causes of action were pleaded: that the Council unlawfully transferred decision-making responsibility for the Park to the AELB, that the AELB should have consulted with other local boards, that the AELB was predetermined against maintaining the status quo, and that the AELB failed to discharge its consultation obligations.

HELD: Application dismissed. There were no errors of law present in any of the impugned decisions. The Council complied with s 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 in allocating decision-making responsibility to the AELB. It was not incumbent on the AELB to consult with other local boards given the approach it took to consultation with stakeholders generally. The AELB did not close its mind to the possibility of maintaining the status quo until its decision in principle on 22 April 2015, at which point it could legitimately make a decision. While it had a predisposition for change, it was legitimate. The evidence did not support a finding that it had closed its mind. Finally, the AELB discharged its decision-making responsibility arising under ss 76-82 of the Local Government Act 2002 properly and in accordance with law.

Mr Genge has, on a number of occasions, by judicial review proceedings in the High Court, challenged decisions made against him when he has been charged with offences as a prisoner. He has been unsuccessful. The proceedings have had little merit. A High Court Judge has used powers now available under the Senior Courts Act to prohibit him for three years from continuing with a current proceeding or filing similar claims without leave of the Court.

Mr Genge was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum sentence of 15 years. Twenty three years later he is still not released. In his application for judicial review Mr Genge says the Chief Executive of Corrections has failed in his duty to give Mr Genge the rehabilitative programmes needed to make him eligible for parole. Application dismissed. The evidence showed a pattern of attempts over the years to provide Mr Genge with rehabilitative support and treatment but Mr Genge resisted engagement on terms other than his own. A further ground of review relating to the Parole Act was a collateral challenge to concluded proceedings and therefore an abuse of process.

Sentence of 28 months' imprisonment imposed for reckless driving causing death.

Verdicts and Reasons following Judge-alone trial against three defendants involved in a large-scale mortgage fraud, involving loans totalling $54 million. Ms Xu found guilty of 22 of 34 charges of obtaining by deception. Mr Chen (a solicitor) found guilty of nine out of 11 charges of obtaining by deception, and also of corruptly paying secret commissions to bank "insiders" (Jiang and Cheng). Mr Jiang found guilty of 25 charges of obtaining by deception, and also of corruptly receiving secret commissions. More detailed summary at [3J to [38J of the decision.

The plaintiff seeks to recover over $600,000 from the defendant in liquidated damages for the defendant's alleged failure to deliver up leased equipment on the lease's expiry. Held, on the terms of the lease there is no triggering 'expiry' obliging the defendant to return the equipment. Even if there was, held the defendant has not 'failed' to deliver up equipment, so no liquidated damages are payable. The plaintiffs claim is dismissed.

Mr Adams pleaded guilty to abduction for the purposes of sexual connection and burglary. A start point of 8 years was adopted, with an uplift of 12 months for prior convictions and 6 months for the burglary. A 10% discount for upbringing and rehabilitation was awarded, as was a 25% guilty plea discount. Preventative detention was considered but not imposed; Mr Adams has not yet had access to a treatment plan.

Sentence of six years and nine months' imprisonment for manslaughter. The defendant had walked in on his father launching an attack against the victim in his bedroom. The defendant assisted his father by holding the victim to enable the fatal assault to continue. During the attack, the defendant became upset at the extent of the violence being inflicted by his father, and decided to leave and walk home. Starting point of seven years and six months uplifted by six months to account for previous convictions, but then a 15 per cent discount for the defendant's mid-trial guilty plea.

Applicable approach in challenges to decisions to cancel or suspend a passport where Crown claims to withhold classified security information (CSI) from affected person. Rigorous approach to apply to claims for need to maintain secrecy of CSI. Security agencies obliged to provide all relevant information to the Court, but not routinely obliged to seek consent to disclose CSI from sources. Disclosure not expected where sourced from the affected person or publicly available, but such sources increase onus to justify prejudice claims. Court supervised summary of CSI provided to the affected person to provide gist of the case. Crown may withdraw items of CSI to exclude content from the summary.

The decision upholds the body corporate’s contention that the Tenancy Tribunal and the District Court were wrong in holding that when recovering the costs of repairs made to unit property under s 138(1) of the Unit Titles Act 2010, s 138(4) applies only in circumstances that s 126 (concerning benefit to other unit owners) does not apply. However, the decision rejects the body corporate’s contention that the choice as to which section applies is solely at the discretion of the body corporate. The decision holds that a body corporate must take into account the purpose of the Act and principles derived from the Act and decisions under the Unit Titles Act 1972 when deciding which section to apply. While the District Court erred on that point of law, its overall approach and the result were broadly consistent with the approach set out in the High Court decision. Accordingly, the body corporate’s appeal was dismissed.

Plaintiff represents Māori on Motu Aotea (Great Barrier). Mandate of Ngāti Rehua-Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust Board to negotiate Treaty settlement recognised by the Crown, settlement reached and legislation pending. Plaintiff challenged whakapapa in the Board's mandate. It sought declarations that it is: entitled to interpret the whakapapa, entitled to negotiate with Crown on Aotea claims, and entitled to receive settlement moneys. Board applied to strike out claim. Claim struck out on the primary ground that the issues are ones which cannot be determined by a court - they are for the executive and, ultimately, Parliament. Also, issues of whakapapa are not appropriately determined by a court.

Sentence of life imprisonmentwith minimum non-parole period of 17 years- for murder and aggravated robbery. The defendant had entered the victim's bedroom intending to tie him up in order to steal his vehicle. In overcoming the victim's resistance the defendant embarked on a brutal and sustained attack with a weapon in which the victim suffered blunt force injuries to his head and strangulation, each of which contributed to his death. Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was engaged, but the defendant would have received a 17-year minimum non-parole period in any event- no need to consider whether such a sentence would be manifestly unjust.

Appeal from decision of Alcohol and Regulatory Licensing Authority dismissed. The plan of the footprint of supermarket and grocery store premises required by the Act need only show the perimeter of the alcohol area not the proposed arrangement of displays within the area. Licensees are not constrained from rearranging displays of alcohol within the designated alcohol area, providing exposure of shoppers to displays is limited so far as is reasonably practicable. Conditions may be imposed to restrict configuration and arrangement of display units within the alcohol area, including aisle-end display units, providing the condition is imposed on a case by case basis and is reasonable.

Sentence of life imprisonment with minimum non-parole period of 12 years for murder and aggravated robbery. Planned killing carried out in brutal manner but minimum non-parole period reduced for guilty plea, co-operation, youth and immaturity.

Application for "proper maintenance and support" pursuant to s 4 Family Protection Act 1955.  Preliminary issue was whether plaintiff entitled to make application as de facto partner of deceased.  No dispute that plaintiff and deceased had been in a long relationship but had never lived together, had no shared assets or finances and limited public relationship.  On other hand sheer length of relationship (27 years) was significant and indicative of a shared life together and limited public relationship was largely the result of significant health issues for the deceased.  In the end plaintiff's characterisation of the relationship supported by independent witnesses, and also by deceased's brothers.  End conclusion was plaintiff the de facto partner of the deceased.  Court accepted that deceased leaving only her ashes to the plaintiff was a breach of moral duty, and after rejecting a claim by the plaintiff that as the surviving spouse entitled to whole of the deceased estate, awarded $300,000 to rectify the breach of moral duty to address plaintiff's economic needs and need for recognition.

Sentence of life imprisonment with 20-year minimum period imposed for third-strike murder. Victim was the defendant's partner; died as a result of at least four blows to the head and torso consistent with the use of fists rather than a weapon. Held that s 104 of the Sentencing Act was not engaged, and a 14-year minimum period would be appropriate were it not for the three-strikes regime. A sentence of life imprisonment without parole was manifestly unjust in light of the Court of Appeal's test in R v Harrison [2016] NZCA 381. Important factors included Mr Davis' age (26 years old, meaning he could be expected to live another 50 years); his mental health difficulties; his guilty plea and the fact rehabilitation could not be entirely excluded. However, a minimum period of 20 years was not manifestly unjust and this was therefore the presumptive sentence under the three-strikes regime.

Sentencing- offender had pleaded guilty to three charges of dealing in a person under the age of 18 years for the purposes of sexual exploitation and one charge of receiving earnings from commercial sexual services provided by a person under the age of 18 years- the offender had assisted the 15 year old victim's mother to set up a prostitution business under which the victim provided sexual services to more than 1000 clients for reward over a period of approximately 18 months beginning on her 15'" birthday- the defendant's role was to provide a bank account for use in the business and, on occasions, to drive the victim to meet clients where she would provide sexual services for reward -the bulk of the earnings from the business went into the offender's bank account and the offender paid expenses, including advertising. From starting point of five years nine months imprisonment to reflect culpability on all charges- discount of three months to reflect prior good character- discount of ten months (or 15%) to reflect late guilty pleas- end sentence four years eight months imprisonment imposed on the three charges of dealing in a person under the age of 18 years for the purposes of sexual exploitation- minimum term of two years four months imprisonment imposed on those charges- concurrent sentence of two years six months imprisonment imposed on the remaining charge.

Reasons for verdict in judge alone trial of 15 charges of violent and sexual offending within a domestic relationship. Defendant pleaded guilty at commencement of trial to one charge of assault with intent to injure. Complainant provided detailed recorded interview days after the incidents, and thereafter recanted. Permission given (per Hannigan v R [2013] 2 NZLR 612]) for Crown counsel to explore inconsistencies between version in recorded interview and exculpatory statements in evidence, and complainant declared hostile at the outset of re-examination. Guilty verdicts on all counts, in reliance on version in the recorded interview. Defendant also charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, with a co-defendant, for encouraging the complainant to recant. Guilty verdict on that charge.

Under r 11.10 of the High Court Rules Clark J recalled and re-issued the judgment to correct some typographical errors