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
TMT v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling video evidence taken on private property during an undercover operation admissible.[2010]  NZCA 287  5 July  2010
Result

Appeal dismissed.

17 December 2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.

13 August 2010
Hearing

2 December 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Iowane Seru Sucuturaga v The Queen
Case number
SC 78/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal from conviction for sexual violation by rape – What is the proper test for admission of evidence concerning jury deliberations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a witness had committed perjury when he had not faced a jury – What is the standard of proof for a finding of perjury – Whether a miscarriage of justice was caused by the admission of inadmissible evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the trial Judge’s misdirection on representative counts did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IOWANE SERU SUCUTURAGA v R SC 78/2010 [3 February 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 February 2011
Case name
Rupinder Singh Chahil v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for kidnapping after joint trial with three others – appeal against sentence and conviction – statement of co-accused used in evidence against the applicant – the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence but declined to impose a sentence of home detention in place of imprisonment – Whether the applicant’s rights under section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (minimum standards of criminal procedure) were breached by the Crown’s use of the co-accused’ s statement at trial – whether the Court of Appeal failed to identify the extent and impact of the inadmissible material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider home detention as an option in terms of section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2010]  NZCA 331   27 July  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed.

28 September 2010
Case name
Chala Sani Abdula v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal - whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; whether the adequacy of evidence called by the defence at trial and the Court of Appeal's refusal of an application to call further medical and scientific evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.[2010]  NZCA 332   28 July  2010
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ABDULA v R SC 80/2010 [1 November 2011] (PDF, 149 KB)
Case name
The Queen v GKB
Case number
SC 88/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of previous consistent statements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged until a proposed witness gives evidence at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged by reference to an accused’s pre‑trial statement to the police.[2010] NZCA 326  CA 313/2010  27 August 2010.
Result

Appeal allowed.  Decision of the District Court reinstated.

17 December 2010
Hearing

7 December 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is only triggered by a challenge to veracity made at trial.

23 September 2010.
Case name
Kent James Bond v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether evidence was admissible – Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in summing up – Whether the sentence was excessive.[2010] NZCA 381  CA 109/2010   18 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BOND v R SC 91/2010 [23 November 2010] (PDF, 43 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

23 November 2010
Case name
Tabbasum Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2010
Summary
Criminal – Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether Crown was required to exclude at trial the possibility that murder injury was unsurvivable – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find sufficient evidence to exclude that possibility.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 790/2009 14 September  2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Stephen Thomas Hudson v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 417 CA 51/2010 13 September  2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The permitted grounds of appeal are whether:
(i)  the evidence in relation to previous acts of violence involving the appellant; and
(ii) the evidence of admissions by the appellant to witnesses that he was responsible for the deceased’s murder should have been admitted at the trial and if so whether adequate directions to the jury in respect of such evidence were given by the trial Judge.
15 December 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
HUDSON v R SC 100/2010 [15 December 2010] (PDF, 36 KB)
Substantive judgment
HUDSON v R SC 100/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 223 KB)
Case name
R S v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2010
Summary
Criminal – Exclusion of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that what specific drug, if any, a police constable is searching for under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is a factual rather than legal issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that whether s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been breached is a factual rather than legal issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its deciding unlawfully obtained evidence was admissible under the balancing exercise in s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006.[2010] NZCA 434 CA 333/2010 22 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 November 2010.
Case name
Peter Muller v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to adduce fresh alibi evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admission of identification evidence at trial, while in error, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice requiring the setting aside of the verdict – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure to grant a stay due to delay[2010] NZCA 380 CA 439/2009  18 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MULLER v R SC 104/2010 [16 D ecember 2010 (PDF, 53 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 December 2010.
Page 31 of 46