Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha v The Queen
Case number
SC 115/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether a tailored demeanour direction should have been given at trial – Whether evidence of breach of a police safety order was admissible as propensity evidence and whether a “proper use” direction was required in respect of that evidence[2015] NZCA 434 CA 597/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted [Taniwha v R [2015] NZCA 434].B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions that:-no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury; and-evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible and no “proper use” direction was required.
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
18 December 2015
___________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 June 2016 (PDF, 477 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 121 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Riley Campbell v The Queen
Case number
SC 121/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the applicant’s interview with police was admissible – Whether cross-examination of the complainant on sexual matters should have been allowed[2014] NZCA 376 CA 378/2014 [2015] NZCA 452 CA 605/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 December 2015
17 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RILEY CAMPBELL v R [2015] NZSC 197 17 December 2015 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v P
Case number
SC 131/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the statements made by P in his video interview after the interview recommenced at 4pm on 4 June 2014 should be admissible – Whether the evidence of the walk-through of the scene and further statements made by Mr P to police on 6 June 2014 should be admissible.[2015] NZCA 530 CA 474/2015
Result
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
Hearing date
21 April 2016
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Judgment appealed from
P v R [2015] NZCA 530 11 Nov 2015_ not publicly available
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 19/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 4 CA 812/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 25/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2014] NZCA 19 CA 420/2013
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 - 26 August 2014 (PDF, 898 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 199 (PDF, 134 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Johan Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand, Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 26/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 135(5) and sch 3, s 2 – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was deficient because it failed to properly state its reasons in breach of rule 27(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction by treating the hearing as a de novo hearing when the appellant had elected for a non de novo hearing – Whether “suspicion” falls below the threshold of “knowing” or reasonably knowing” in terms of s 135(5) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to extend the right to lay representation in the Employment Court, as provided under s 2 of sch 3, to the Court of Appeal. [2014] NZCA 16 CA 400/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Maythem Kamil Radhi v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 73/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Immigration Act 1987, ss 142 and 144 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “arrival” in New Zealand was not a requirement for an offence to be committed under s 142(fa) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was an offence to attempt to commit the offence set out in s 142(fa) of the Immigration Act 1987 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the multiplier provision in s 144(1A) of the Immigration Act 1987 applies to both the fine and the period of imprisonment set out in that section.[2014] NZCA 327 CA 322/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 September 2014
29 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 75/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’ s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 321 CA 210/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
26 September 2014
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
26 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v TWW
Case number
SC 80/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 28, 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admissions by the accused obtained through a police undercover operation employing the “scenario technique” were unfairly and thus improperly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a Bill of Rights analysis where the accused’s rights were not breached – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that exclusion of the admissions was proportionate to the impropriety – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admissions were unreliable.[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 339).
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 February 2015 (PDF, 506 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Elvis Heremia Teddy v New Zealand Poice
Case number
SC 101/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Maritime Transport Act 1994 – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 65 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 applied extraterritorially to New Zealand ships – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the arrest powers in the Crimes Act 1961 empower the New Zealand Police to stop and board New Zealand ships and to arrest offenders extraterritorially.[2014] NZCA 422 CA 614/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 February 2015
17 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 9 of 16