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.
3 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
Case name
Phillip Wiki Taha v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether new evidence not led at trial is “ fresh” and cogent.[2015] NZCA 107 CA 405/2014
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
16 March 2016
16 March 2016
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mohammed Munif Sahib v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted – Whether s 44 of the Evidence Act 2006 was applied correctly by the trial judge.[2015] NZCA 112 CA 252/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 July 2015
20 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tony Gordon Best v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. [2015] NZCA 159 CA 254/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 122 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2015] NZSC 167 [3 November 2015] (PDF, 111 KB)
Substantive judgment
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2016] NZSC 122 [8 September 2016] (PDF, 434 KB)
Case name
D v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit expert evidence on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no miscarriage of justice due to a failure to give a reliability warning under s 122(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s propensity direction to the jury was adequate.[2015] NZCA 171 CA 345/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
31 July 2015
31 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
D (SC 60/2015) v R [2015] NZSC 119 31 July 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Justin Ames Johnston v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted at trial – whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’ s conclusion on intention – whether acts and omissions were sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt. [2015] NZCA 162 CA 58/2014[2012] NZCA 559 CA 262/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Johnston v R [2015] NZCA 162).
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 83 (PDF, 244 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN AMES JOHNSTON v R [2016] NZSC 83 [6 July 2016] (PDF, 210 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
The Queen v SSC
Case number
SC 67/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admissions in response to police questioning – Whether exclusion of evidence is proportionate to the police impropriety. [2015] NZCA 241
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (C v R [2015] NZCA 241).The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to quash the High Court’s order that the latter part (commencing at 2.14 pm) of the interview between Mr C and the police on 28 March 2014 is admissible at his trial.
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
Date of hearing
10 December 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Michael Shane Henry Lihou v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Application to present new evidence – Whether counsel presented proper defence at trial. [2015] NZCA 227 CA 646/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal pre-trial decision ([2013] NZCA 195) is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal conviction decision ([2015] NZCA 227) is also dismissed.
30 October 2015
B The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal conviction decision ([2015] NZCA 227) is also dismissed.
30 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rawiri David Lawson v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant was unable to instruct counsel or present a defence – Whether the Crown’s presentation of evidence differed from the Crown’s closing – Whether propensity evidence was wrongfully admitted – Whether a charge was withdrawn too late to avoid unfair trial – Whether jury directed to speculate over matters of which there was no evidence of – Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict.[2014] NZCA 463 CA 397/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 6 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Dinesh Kumar Manoharan v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial Judge had not erred in allowing certain evidence to be admitted, in particular low copy number DNA evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the verdict was not unreasonable.[2015] NZCA 237 CA5/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 October 2015
28 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 14 of 46