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
RAS  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Prostitution Reform Act 2003, s 22(1) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22(1) as a strict liability offence – Whether Court of Appeal correctly held that search warrants were properly obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 rather than s 30 of the Prostitution Reform Act – Whether Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act was correct.[2012]NZCA 189   CA 761/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
27 July 2012.
Case name
TK v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the hearsay statements of a 3-year old child were reliable and admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the child was “available as a witness” under the Evidence Act – Whether there would be prejudice arising out of not being able to cross-examine the child – Whether expert evidence on the accuracy of children’ s memory should be admitted.2012]NZCA 167  CA 94/2012
Dates
Application for leave to admit new evidence and for leave to appeal are dismissed.
4 July 2012.
Case name
A  v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Sentencing Act 2002, s 106 – Conspiracy to commit incest – Whether the consequences of a conviction are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. [2012]NZCA 328  CA   747/2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 August 2012
______________________________________
The application to recall this Court’s judgment is dismissed.
16 October 2012
____________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment ([2012] NZSC 76) is dismissed.
2 December 2015
Recall judgment
A (SC 43/2012) v R [2015] NZSC 184 [2 December 2015] (PDF, 138 KB)
Case name
Wayne Goodwin Janse v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence on one count of injuring with intent to injury and another of male assaults female – Whether verdict can be supported on the evidence – Whether particular evidence should have been presented to the jury at an earlier stage of the trial – Whether institutional gender bias surrounding domestic violence caused a miscarriage of justice.   [2012]NZCA 214  CA   526/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 October 2012.
Case name
L  v  R
Case number
SC 49/2012
Summary
Criminal – Surveillance - Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 – Evidence Act 2996, s 30 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that video surveillance of the entrance to the applicant’s driveway did not constitute an unlawful search - Whether the Court erred in admitting the evidence under s 30 Evidence Act 2006.[2012]NZCA 264  CA   143/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal refused.
7 August 2012.
Case name
Gerald Thondhlana v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Appeal against conviction of assault with intent to injure – Whether counsel failed to call relevant medical evidence – Whether counsel adequately argued self-defence – Whether Crown witnesses were cross-examined on inconsistent statements – Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred[2012]NZCA 233  CA   536/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
14 November 2012.
Case name
Christopher Edward Huggins v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3) – Doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years – Unreasonable verdict – Insufficient evidence to convict – Court of Appeal erred in holding that lies told by the accused contributed to cogent circumstantial evidence of guilt.  [2012]NZCA 261  CA   768/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

25 September 2012.
Case name
Patricia Pickering  v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – jury directions – what duty does the Crown Solicitor have to inform the defence in a timely manner when the Crown proposes resiling from an earlier agreement not to offer propensity evidence – is it fair that defence consent to vital propensity evidence can be implied when the evidence and propensity issues were not raised by the Crown with either the defence or with the trial Judge – was the trial Judge’s direction to the jury in respect of inferences/circumstantial evidence adequate – whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from the Crown Solicitor’s use of emotive and inappropriate language in his closing address – whether the High Court should have permitted the “Lammie” evidence to be received as fresh evidence.[2012]NZCA 311  CA   546/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 October 2012.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332  CA  371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Further Evidence – Whether the Supreme Court should admit further evidence, including evidence from a witness called at trial and evidence from a police interview[2012]NZCA 339  CA  615/2011
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal’ s treatment of the affidavit(s) of H’s son, M, was correct. 28 February 2013
Transcripts
Leave judgment - leave granted
H v R SC 54/2012 [28 February 2013] (PDF, 36 KB)
Supreme court decision
NZSC revokes leave to appeal: H v R [2015] NZSC 70 [7 May 2015] (PDF, 86 KB)
Page 72 of 109