High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court 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.
R v Tarrant, CRI-2019-009-2468
The High Court has published:
- general information about the sentencing process in New Zealand,
- procedural information about the sentencing hearing which ran from 24-27 August 2020,
- information for media,
- minutes of the sentencing judge in this matter, Mander J,
- and more.
Held: Sentence of life imprisonment with 14-year MPI imposed. Section 104(g) clearly met given the victim's vulnerability, being only two years old and in a position of care and trust of the defendant. However, a 17- year MPI would be manifestly unjust. The defendant's mental illness, and the particular effect it had on the thinking and decision-making that led to the victim's death, reduced his culpability. A two-year reduction from the MPI was given in recognition of this. A further one year reduction was given in respect of his genuine remorse.
The charges arise out of an altercation on a residential street. Following an earlier incident, the deceased, the complainant, and four other men went to the defendant's family home late at night looking for a fight. The defendant's brother was being beaten on the ground by at least three if not more men, when the defendant came out waving a knife resulting in the stabbing of the deceased and the complainant.
The Court finds that self-defence is to be considered in determining involvement partly because it is the only opportunity the defendant will have to run that defence. On the facts of this case, the Court finds that the defendant was acting to defend his brother and himself at the time of the stabbings. Accordingly, self-defence is established and the defendant is found not to be "involved". The charges are dismissed.
Debra Tihema sentenced to life imprisonment with MPI of 17 years.
Ms Tihema's role was central to the offending, including introducing the weapon.
Cyle Jetson sentenced to life imprisonment with a MPI of 11 years' imprisonment and six months' imprisonment on the charge of burglary, to be served concurrently. Mitigating factors include youth and rehabilitative prospects, traumatic family background, and substance abuse.
Mylesha Tihema sentenced to life imprisonment with a MPI of 10 years' imprisonment. Mitigating factors include youth, FASO, alcohol and drug abuse.
Ngati Te Ata's Treaty claims regarding Maioro were the subject of recommendations by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1985. Despite nearly 30 years of negotiation, the Crown and Ngati Te Ata are yet to reach a settlement. The plaintiffs commenced these proceedings in 2013. Key to the plaintiffs' claims are allegations that (1) the sale of Maioro to the Crown in 1864 is voidable for duress, undue influence and/or was an unconscionable bargain; (2) the confiscation was unlawful; (3) the Crown's acquisition of Maioro was in breach of a fiduciary duty owed by the Crown to Ngati Te Ata; (4) the public works takings were unlawful; and (5) the Treaty settlement negotiations gave rise to binding obligations on the Crown which it has failed to implement. The Crown (and NZ Steel) deny the claims, and raise affirmative defences of standing, limitation, laches and acquiescence.
HELD: The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The sale and/or the confiscation extinguished native customary title in Maioro. The public works takings were lawful exercises of the relevant statutory powers at the time. The Treaty settlement negotiations do not give rise to lthe binding obligations suggested. Ngati Te Ata has valid Treaty claims, but those claims are properly resolved through the Treaty settlement process.
Under the RMA, could the companies and the Regional Council process applications for a consent to a change of use of the water without also having to process the applications as for a new take of water?
Under the RMA, can an application be made for consent to a take of water or for the use of water, or must an application be made for a consent to the take and use of water?
Once the change of use had been approved, was it unlawful for the Council to issue a new amalgamated consent recording the approved changed use, and the extraction previously permitted with the earlier take and use consent?
Was the Council correct in treating the extraction authorised by the previous consents as part of the environment against which the effects of the proposed change of use had to be assessed?
Had the Council considered all matters as required in deciding whether neither public nor limited notification of the applications was required?