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
Brett Stuart Wellm v The Queen
Case number
SC 63/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in length. [2009] NZCA 175  CA 581/2008
Dates

Notice of Abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

18 November 2013.
Case name
Guo Wei Deng v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) – Criminal Practice and Procedure – Witness not called – Appeal against conviction – Whether allegedly inadequate interpretation assistance constituted a breach of the applicant’s right under s 24(g) of the NZBORA – Whether counsel’s failure to call two witnesses at the request of the applicant resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2009] NZCA 445  CA 780/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GUO WEI DENG v R [2013] NZSC 100 [15 October 2013] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

15 October 2013
Case name
Christopher Jacob Junior Shadrock v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282  CA 496/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 October 2013
Case name
Terence Mario Tere  The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282  CA 462/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 October 2013
Case name
Raeleen Rameka v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misstating the test in respect of withdrawal under s 66(1).[2011] NZCA 75   CA 131/2010
Result
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.

30 October 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2013] NZSC 121 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 66 KB)
Supreme court decision
JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 761 KB)
Hearing
11 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping JJ.
Case name
C  v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial application – Blackmail, assault, assault with intent to injure – Whether trial Judge correctly concluded that text messages were not unlawfully interception – Crimes Act 1961, s 216B – Whether text messages could be lawfully obtained through a production order – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 71¬–72 – Admissibility of text messages at trial – Evidence Act 2006, s 30.[2013] NZHC 1900     CRI 2012 009 11872
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHAPMAN v R [2013] NZSC 83 [23 August 2013] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

23 August 2013
Case name
Stephen John Lawler v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2013
Summary
Criminal – appeal against sentence – appeal against conviction - whether the Court of Appeal erred in not calling for further reports regarding the applicant’s fitness to stand trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions and the sentence of preventive detention – whether the Court of Appeal rightly refused a recusal application.[2012] NZCA 308   CA 777/2010; CA 655/2012; CA 656/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LAWLER v R [2013] NZSC 92 [3 October 2013] (PDF, 70 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal declined.

3 October 2013
Case name
Philip John Gash  v The Queen
Case number
SC 78/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether or not the trial Judge erred in amending the indictment.[2012] NZCA 309   CA 808/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GASH v R [2013] NZSC 106 [4 November 2013] (PDF, 45 KB)
Case name
Mark Heteraka v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Identification evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 45(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act.[2013] NZHCA 339   CA 592/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MARK HETERAKA v R [2013] NZSC 119 [13 November 2013] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 November 2013. 
Case name
John Douglas McKenzie v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act ss 8, 12A and 27(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “statement” in s 27(1) of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply the “co-conspirator’s rule” under s 12A of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the prejudicial effect of the evidence in question did not outweigh its probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Evidence Act – whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable.[2013] NZHCA 378   CA 795/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN DOUGLAS MCKENZIE v R [2013] NZSC 109 [11 November 2013] (PDF, 69 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is declined.

11 November 2013
Page 66 of 109