High Court Judgments of Public Interest

Audrey Thompson sentenced to life imprisonment with a 10-year minimum period of imprisonment for the murder of friend’s partner by stabbing him twice in the neck with a broken bottle. The Court considered a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years, the statutory minimum, was appropriate having regard to the aggravating factors present (deliberate creation of a lethal weapon out of a nearby beer bottle; the use of that lethal weapon twice; and the fact the strike was to the deceased’s neck, a very vulnerable part of the human body); comparable decisions; and allowances given for Ms Thompson’s prior good character, her PTSD and background trauma, and the time she had spent on EM bail.

Application for judicial review of decision to extradite applicant to China to face murder charge.

Held: Application declined. Reasonable basis for Minister to be satisfied no sufficiently material change in circumstances since Supreme court decision to require wider reconsideration of extradition. Comprehensive diplomatic assurances remain effective. Differences in foreign policy have not impacted years of law enforcement cooperation. Further rejection of Western ideas not a material change to position known to the Supreme Court. Obstruction of United Nations inquiry does not make monitoring assurances ineffective. No material change to risk of doctors being unlikely to report torture.

Sentencing of Mr L for 34 serious violent and sexual offending. Victims of the offending included Mr L's children, his stepchild and former partner. Aggravating factors include a significant breach of trust, victim vulnerability, a climate of control, use of object for sexual offending, victim harm, and cruelty.

Held: Sentence of preventive detention imposed. Minimum period of eight years' imprisonment. Considerable history of sexual and violent history showing a pattern of serious offending. Expert reports indicate a tendency to commit serious violence offences in the future. Absence of failure to address the cause of the offending. Not satisfied Mr L will engage in rehabilitation.

Sentencing for manslaughter - single stabbing in the course of a mutual fist-fight. Starting point 6.5 years. Uplift for offending while subject to sentence and for history of violence offending (4 months). Discounts of 20 and 10 per cent for guilty plea and background factors respectively. End sentence 4 years and 10 months' imprisonment. First strike warning issued.

Dispute between liquidators of Mainzeal and insurer QBE as to insurance monies payable under D&O policy for damages for directors’ breach of duties (ordered by SC in 2023). Issue one whether $1M payable under extension (for Mr Yan as non-executive director) excluded by personal profit exclusion. Issue two whether QBE must indemnify Mainzeal for GST payable on receipt under s 5(13) GST Act and whether Mainzeal must structure its receipt so as not to incur GST liability.

Held: $1M under extension not within exclusion clause because of prescriptive and narrow requirements of clause; Mainzeal not indemnified for GST payable on receipt of insurance monies. Exclusion requires final judgment ‘determining’ insured committed wrongful act (breach of duty) intended to gain personal profit/advantage not legally entitled to and in fact gained which must be material to cause of action adjudicated – acts material to breach must intend to and in fact result in personal profit/advantage. SC judgment ‘final’ but HC and CA findings relevant if unchallenged, ‘in fact’ means evidentiary threshold not equivocal findings. No finding of personal profit/advantage in relevant breach period;  material to breach was directors’ failure to recognise risk without binding support/capital; limited actions to reduce risk; and obligations entered with no reasonable grounds of being honoured. HC held Yan benefitted from funds extracted but that state of affairs occurred prior to breach date, acts/omissions required under exclusion are distinct from existing state of affairs. GST indemnity only applies to ‘the insured’ meaning the insured claiming cover under policy, Mainzeal received payment as third-party claimant not as an ‘insured’. No duty to structure payment in tax-efficient manner, indemnity triggered by GST liability incurred by ‘the insured’ on receipt. Whether proposed two-step process realistic unnecessary to determine.

Dispute whether Mainzeal’s receipt of indemnity payment under D&O policy for damages for directors’ breach of duties (ordered by SC in 2023) subject to GST under s 5(13) GST Act. Section 5(13) provides GST payable on payment under contract of insurance, whether or not party to contract, that relates to loss incurred in taxable activity. Held: GST payable on Mainzeal’s receipt of indemnity payment. Section amended in 2000 to ensure insurance payments to registered third parties are subject to output tax in hands of third party. ‘Under contract of insurance’ means receipt which contractually entitled to but ‘whether or not party to contract’ alters requirement for contractual relationship. ‘Relates to loss incurred’ not confined to insured’s loss but includes loss incurred in furtherance of taxable activity. Despite internally inconsistent language, intention of amendment clear to impose GST liability on third parties on actual receipt of a payment made under a contract of insurance.

Toni-Ashley Crawford sentenced for the murder of Teri Rhind following jury trial. Ms Crawford conducted a U-turn, crossed centre line and accelerated to strike victim with her vehicle.

Held: Sentence of life imprisonment imposed with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

Circumstances did not make a sentence of life imprisonment manifestly unjust. Aggravating factors of manner of driving, use of a weapon, vulnerability of victim, callousness and post-offending conduct and extent of loss, damage and harm. Personal mitigating factors of personal background, mental health and addiction. Ms Crawford likely experiencing methamphetamine-induced psychosis at time of offending.

Manslaughter sentencing. Defendant lit fire killing deceased. Defendant suffers intellectual difficulties. Crown accepted plea of guilty to manslaughter and abandoned murder charge. Six year starting point adopted given intellectual difficulties. Final sentence five years’ imprisonment.

Application under s 317 of the Property Law Act 2007 for modification of a covenant so it no longer burdens the applicant’s land.

HELD: Change in character of the neighbourhood since registration; covenant impeded the reasonable use of the burdened land; and no substantial injury to the benefiting owners; application granted.

Mr Hannon McGinn and Mr Howe sentenced after being found guilty of murder by jury. Mr Hannon McGinn additionally pleaded guilty to arson, while the jury found Mr Howe guilty of same. Court satisfied that life sentence would not be manifestly unjust under s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Court also satisfied that ss 104(1)(e) and 104(1)(g) engaged but found that a 17 year minimum period of imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.

Starting point for Mr Hannon McGinn was a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 years. Reductions available for remorse and traumatic background with causal connection with the offending. End sentence of life imprisonment with a 13-year minimum period of imprisonment. Firearms prohibition order made under s 39A(1)(a) of the Arms Act 1983.

Starting point for Mr Howe was a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years. Reductions available for remorse, time spent on EM bail, as well as psychological processing difficulties. End sentence of life imprisonment with a 10 year 4 month minimum period of imprisonment. Firearms prohibition order made under s 39A(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

On the charge of arson, Mr Hannon McGinn and Mr Howe sentenced to seven years' imprisonment to be served concurrently.

The defendant appeared for sentence on their guilty pleas to murder in culmination of five breaches (one representative) of a protection order made in favour of the victim, who was the defendant’s former partner. The defendant, while on bail awaiting sentence for two of the admitted breach of protection order charges, had entered the victim’s home unannounced, stabbing them 13 times. On the murder conviction, the Court found the Sentencing Act 2002’s s 104(1A)(c), (d), (e) and (h) factors were engaged, and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. On the protection order convictions, the Court sentenced the defendant to six years and nine months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

Hao Feng sentenced to a term of four years and two months' imprisonment for the manslaughter of his partner by manual strangulation. The Court imposed a starting point of seven years' imprisonment, having regard to the aggravating factors present (harm caused to others; vulnerability of the neck; breach of trust within an intimate partner relationship; and failure to seek medical assistance), comparable decisions, and the leading cases on non-fatal strangulation, Shramka v R [2022) NZCA 299, [2022) 3 NZLR 348, and non­fatal serious violent offending, R v Taueki [2005) 3 NZLR 372 (CA). Total allowances of 40 per cent granted comprising reductions for guilty pleas (20 per cent); remorse (five per cent); hardship in being imprisoned as a foreign national speaking no English (five per cent); and personal circumstances including the impact of the offending on the defendant's children (10 per cent).

Sentencing for Kaixiao Liu and Lanyue Xiao in respect of offending connected with the death of Shulai Wang.

Mr Liu given a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment for kidnapping/manslaughter charges and an 18 month uplift for the attempting to pervert justice and misconduct with human remains charges. Ms Xiao given a starting point of eight years, six months' imprisonment for the kidnapping/manslaughter charges and a 15 month uplift for the attempting to pervert justice and misconduct with human remains charges.

Defendants each given a five per cent discount for impact on children, five per cent discount for good character and 10 month reduction for time spent on EM bail.

Urgent application for an interim injunction and prospective costs. The applicant seeks to restrain the trustees of Toi Foundation, a charitable trust, from voting on a proposed sale of shares in TSB Bank and requiring it to apply for directions under s 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 ahead of any such vote.

Held: Persons who my receive a benefit from a charitable trust are excluded from the meaning of "beneficiary" in the Trusts Act. The applicant is thus not a beneficiary and does not have standing to bring review under ss 126-127 of the Trusts Act. Nor can the claim be brought under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The applicant has therefore not made out a serious question to be tried. Even if the applicant did have standing, a serious question to be tried has not been made out on the merits of its allegations. Application dismissed.

Held: As the applicant has not made out a seriously arguable case, it is not appropriate to grant prospective costs. Application dismissed.

Murder sentencing; s 104 engaged due to post-mortem desecration of the body.

Held: 17 year minimum period of imprisonment not manifestly unjust; sentenced to life imprisonment with 17 year minimum period of imprisonment.

Sentencing of D for one charge of attempted murder of her three-year-old son. Offending involved the infliction of several wounds to the victim's neck with a meat cleaver.

Result: Offending falls within Band 3 of Taueki, providing a starting point range between nine and 14 years. Aggravating factors include premeditation (to a modest degree); use of a weapon; severity of injuries; attack to the neck (synonymous with attack to the head); breach of trust; and victim vulnerability. Notional starting point of 10 years, six months' imprisonment. Starting point reduced by 24 per cent to eight years' imprisonment to acknowledge that Ms D was of substantially diminished culpability due to suffering an acute psychological crisis at the time of the offending. 15 per cent discount for guilty plea. 10 per cent discount for good character. No discount for remorse given Ms D continues to minimise aspects of the offending. No discount for background or rehabilitative efforts. 11 month discount for time spent on EM bail. End sentence of five years and one month's imprisonment.

Application for permanent name suppression refused. The identified hardships fall below the required standards for name suppression. Public interest in reporting serious offending of this nature.

Reasons for verdicts of not guilty following Judge-alone trial of two defendants each facing one charge of wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.

Verdicts following Judge-alone trial of two defendants each facing one charge of wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.  Both defendants found not guilty.  Reasons provided in a separate judgment. 

Ms Tauroa was sentenced in the District Court to two years and eight months' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for two years following a guilty plea to one charge of dangerous driving causing death.  The victim was her 10-year-old stepbrother.  Ms Tauroa was 23 years old at the time of the offending.  Ms Tauroa appealed against that sentence on the basis that more than a 40 per cent reduction for various mitigating factors should have been allowed, although that was all that was asked for at the time of sentencing.

Held: appeal allowed in part.  The Court held that applying the 40 per cent cap under s 9Q of the Sentencing Act 2002 would result in manifest injustice under s 9R.  A reduction of 45 per cent, and at most 47.5 per cent, was the least extent necessary to avoid manifest injustice.  This reflect Ms T's youth, otherwise good character as a true first offender, community support (which wasn't explicitly allowed for), together with her guilty plea, remorse and capacity for rehabilitation, together with the profound trauma arising from the death of her young stepbrother and the lifelong consequences of the offending (which had been allowed for).  The sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment was quashed and replaced with two years and four months' imprisonment.  The two-year driving disqualification remained. 

Sentencing for extensive sexual offending against four victims. Three of the victims were teenagers at the time of the offending, with one being a young person under the age of 16 years, and defendant occupied a position of trust. Offending included four charges of sexual violation by rape, eight counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, committing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend, a representative charge of sexual conduct with a young person under 16, strangulation, two counts of threatening to kill, and drug charges. Aggravating factors of planning and premeditation, breach of trust, vulnerability, scale of offending, multiple offenders, use of drugs, level of harm to victims. Offending against fourth victim of indecent assault and threatening to kill. Displayed a lack of remorse and understanding of offending.

Held: Sentence of preventive detention imposed. Minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years'. Factors in 87(4) of the Sentencing Act 2002 met. Health assessor reports concluded that defendant posed risk of committing further sexual offending. Lack of remorse or understanding indicative of tendency to commit serious sexual offences in future. Despite previous efforts at treatment, pattern of offending discloses increasing seriousness. If preventive detention were not imposed, a finite sentence of 18 years and six months' imprisonment would be imposed.

Application for declaration that Gangs Act 2024, s 7 (provision), which prohibits display of gang insignia in public places, is inconsistent with right to freedom of expression under s 14 of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Held, provision limits right to freedom of expression, noting that expressive activity, including contentious or provocative activity, may be protected as speech (Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9 (CA); Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30).

No rights-consistent meaning advanced by defendant.

Held, limitation on right to freedom of expression imposed by provision had not been justified under s 5 of Bill of Rights. Gangs Act’s stated objective (to reduce ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation and disruption to public) a sufficiently important objective to justify some limitation on freedoms of gang members. Limitation rationally connected with its objective. However, objective could have been achieved by more limited ban; limit not proportionate to aim sought to be achieved.

Having found s 7 to be an unjustified limitation, Court addressed whether to exercise discretion to make declaration of inconsistency. Supreme Court decisions in AG v Taylor [2018] NZSC 104, Make It 16 Inc v AG [2022] NZSC 134 and AG v Chisnall [2024] NZSC 178 considered.

Held, declaration would serve public remedial purpose and have utility for plaintiff without undermining his conviction.

Held, comity/deference did not require Court to decline to make declaration. Deference inherent in fact that Court’s power is declaratory only; not appropriate for courts to act strategically by anticipating political reaction to a declaration. Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Taylor and Chisnall in which Court said that in making a declaration the court was fulfilling its obligation to grant remedies for breaches of the Bill of Rights Act and was exercising its judicial function.

Attorney-General’s report to Parliament under s 7 of Bill of Rights did not militate against declaration; s 7 report and declarations serve different purposes.

Declaration made that s 7 of Gangs Act inconsistent with right in s 14 of Bill of Rights and that this has not been justified under s 5 of Bill of Rights.

Associated application for declaration that provision also inconsistent with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declined for lack of jurisdiction.

Sentencing. Mr Tasker is for sentence on the murder of a police officer, causing grievous bodily harm to another police officer; driving dangerously causing injury (x2), and dangerous driving, driving with excess blood alcohol, and driving while disqualified.

Result: On the charge of murder, Mr Tasker is sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 22 years and disqualified from driving for three years; for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, eight years' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for three years; for driving dangerously and causing injury, two years' imprisonment and two years' disqualification on each charge; for dangerous driving, driving with excess blood alcohol and disqualified driving, three months imprisonment and disqualification from driving for three years. All sentences are to be served concurrently. Destruction of the motor vehicle ordered under s 142R of the Sentencing Act.

Sentencing for murder. V, high-ranking member of gang, planned attack on victim’s grandson from prison for retribution and deterrence of stand-over tactics against gang faction. Co defendants sourced firearm and shot victim at his address under V’s direction. S 104 engaged, planning unsophisticated but over four days, knew victim lived at target’s address (s104(1A)(b)). MPI starting point: 15 years and three months, not sophisticated but calculated planning from prison, V instrumental role although not shooter (9 month deduction for guilty plea). 17-year MPI not manifestly unjust. End sentence: Life imprisonment with 17-year MPI.

Sentencing of Mr Dwight Fatu for serious methamphetamine charges and participating in an organised criminal group. Mr Fatu pleaded guilty to the offending four years after the charges were made and subsequent to a Court of Appeal decision holding that evidence taken from the AN0M devices used to facilitate the offending was admissible.

Sentencing comprised of an 11-year starting point, one year uplift for other offending, one year uplift for previous convictions, 15 percent discount for background, and 15 percent discount for guilty plea. No reductions granted for delay as not undue or behaviour of the FBI. This produced an end sentence of nine years and five months' imprisonment.

Sentencing for three charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent to injure and threatening to kill. Offending committed in 2003, originally receiving a sentence of preventive detention. In 2025, the Court of Appeal quashed the sentence. Sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment imposed.