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.
28 November 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)
All years
Case name
David Ingram Rowley v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 572/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC ¶22-011).In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
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
K v The Queen
Case number
SC 133/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a miscarriage of justice has arisen due to delay in bringing the matter to trial – Whether the trial Judge should have given a reliability warning under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 [2015] NZCA 566 CA 665/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 March 2016
15 March 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
K (SC 133/2015) v R [2016] NZSC 26 15 March 2016 (PDF, 73 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Deuce Derrick Junior Evo Savage v The Queen
Case number
SC 134/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Evidence Act 2006, s 126 – Whether verdict unreasonable – Whether Trial Judge failed to direct jury appropriately on requirements to establish guilt – Whether Trial Judge gave adequate identification warning.[2015] NZCA 550 CA 611/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 1 March 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Robert Craig Winterburn v The Queen
Case number
SC 136/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that conviction of the applicant on some charges was not unreasonably inconsistent with acquittal on other charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by relying on previous warnings about an indeterminate sentence in imposing a sentence of preventive detention. [2015] NZCA 384 CA 587/2014; CA 598/2014
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 140/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Evidence Act 2006, s 122 – Whether Trial Judge failed to give adequate directions in relation to reliability of propensity evidence – Whether Trial Judge failed to give adequate directions in relation to the prosecutor’s closing address. [2015] NZCA 572 CA 117/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 June 2016
20 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
T(SC 140/2015) v R [2016] NZSC 71 20 June 2016 (PDF, 81 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the evidence from the complainant’ s mother was not expert evidence.[2013] NZCA 593 CA 100/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
The approved questions are:
Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?
If the evidence was admissible:
should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?
was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?
If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?
25 March 2014
__________
Appeal dismissed.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 June 2014 (PDF, 313 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 122 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
KWK v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Improperly obtained evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the availability of other investigatory techniques under s 30(3)(e) of the Evidence Act was a factor favouring admissibility of improperly obtained evidence – Whether s 30(3)(e) requires the person(s) exercising the unlawful search to have knowledge of the other investigatory techniques not involving any breach of rights.[2013] NZCA 616 CA 456/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 March 2014
6 March 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2013] NZCA 616 not available online
Case name
Paul Anthony Thompson v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’ s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.[2013] NZCA 640 CA 110/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 April 2014
4 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
DH v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was correct to admit expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to the expert evidence was adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s directions in relation to evidence of no prior convictions was appropriate.[2013] NZCA 670 CA 87/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
2 May 2014
_____________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
2 May 2014
_____________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 36 (PDF, 254 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
DH (SC9/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 50 [2 May 2014] (PDF, 8 KB)
Substantive judgment
DH (SC 9/2014) v R [2015] NZSC 35 [16 April 2015] (PDF, 366 KB)
Page 59 of 109