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
Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 72/2013
Summary
Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’ s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.[2013] NZCA 276 CA 395/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.The approved questions are:(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 March 2014 SC 72/2013 (PDF, 327 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 28 (PDF, 251 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
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
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
11 November 2013
Case name
CT v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient consideration to ss 25(a) and (f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in deciding that no miscarriage of justice had arisen because of delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the significance of the evidence unavailable to the defendant because of the time that had elapsed between the offending and the criminal proceedings. [2013] NZCA 383 CA 188/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.
9 December 2013
_______________
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.
30 October 2014
The ground for appeal is whether prosecution should have been stayed because of the delay between the alleged offending and the prosecution.
9 December 2013
_______________
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
No order for new trial.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 April 2014 SC 88/2013 (PDF, 264 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 155 (PDF, 263 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
CT v R [2013] NZSC 142 [9 December 2013] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
CT (SC 88/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 155 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 268 KB)
Case name
PPT v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that the propensity evidence is admissible.[2013] NZCA 365 CA 276/2012, CA 426/2013
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 October 2013
Case name
Mikhail Rafael Pandey-Johnson v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2013
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Crown had proved causation – Whether trial counsel erred in failing to challenge causation at trial – Whether evidence of Crown witness was admissible – Whether minimum non-parole period imposed was too high – Whether factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied. [2012] NZCA 595 CA 515/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 December 2013
Case name
William Victor George Conway v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 15(1)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence relied on by the Crown supported the conviction of the applicant on the counts alleging breach of enforcement orders – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling admissible the prior statement of the applicant where supplementary information was required to interpret correctly the content of the statement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively ruling that under s 15(1)(b) the Crown did not need to establish a real risk that the contaminant discharge onto the land might enter water – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the ruling of the trial Judge as to the verdicts which ought to have been accepted from the jury where the jury had returned verdicts of guilty on all the charges the applicant faced including the counts laid against him in the alternative[2013] NZCA 438 CA 806/2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 October 2013
24 October 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
David Neil Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 445/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
Case name
Daryl Kirsty Reid Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 444/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.Page 21 of 46