Courts roundup 14 July - 20 July 2022

Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Gambhir v New Zealand Police [2022] NZHC 1582 (5 July 2022) Moore J
Successful application for leave to bring second appeal against conviction – G fined $170 and issued 35 demerit points for infringing speed limit through stretch of road works on State Highway 1 in Dome Valley – Said sign displaying temporary speed limit erroneously left out when site unattended -
HC said G’s argument raised matter of general importance as concerned interpreting Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 – G self-represented until counsel appeared in HC - Justices of the Peace and DC did not address interpretative issue as question of law - Miscarriage of justice could occur if argument not properly ventilated in HC - Application granted.
Snell v R [2022] NZHC 1627 (12 July 2022) Downs J
Sentencing – S imported and possessed 306 objectionable publications involving sexual abuse of children - Appealed two years and five months' imprisonment sentence - Extensive discussion of case law and legislative history - Four year starting point upheld – Five percent rehabilitation discount - Sentence reduced to two years two months' imprisonment.
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association [2022] SCC 30 (15 July 2022)
Unsuccessful appeal from Federal CA - In 2012, Parliament added s 2.4 (1.1) to Copyright Act 1997 through Copyright Modernization Act (CMA) to implement WIPO Treaty rights and protections – Amended s 3.1 (f) Copyright Act to clarify “communication of a work or other subject‑matter to the public by telecommunication” –
Copyright Board of Canada (Board) federal administrative body - Mandate included approving amount of royalties paid for some online services - Concurrently shared first instance jurisdiction over Copyright Act aspects with courts - Received submissions from different groups including Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) –
SOCAN said “making works available” online attracted separate royalty for downloading or streaming same works later on - Would mean that, for example, online music services would have to pay royalty when posting song on Internet in way that allowed for individual user online access - Another royalty would be paid when song downloaded or streamed - Board agreed with SOCAN –
Federal CA overturned Board decision - Said new section did not create new and separate royalty for uploading work - SOCAN appealed to SC –
SC majority dismissed SOCAN’s appeal – Said Board’s interpretation inconsistent with law’s text and purpose and ran contrary to previous SC decisions in other copyright cases - Copyright Act did not exist solely to benefit authors - Board’s interpretation would also force users to pay more fees if accessed works on Internet instead of using other means, such as radio - Mattered what user received, not how user received it –
Test to determine how courts reviewed administrative decisions on legal issues, like Board’s here, set out in earlier SC case - Established categories of legal issues that should be reviewed under “correctness” standard - “Correctness” meant administrative decision on issue had to be only right answer in light of law and facts - Legal issue raised by Board’s decision here did not fall into existing “correctness” categories - However, previous case said new categories could be created in rare circumstances - SC created new category of “correctness” review and found Board’s decision wrong – Appeal dismissed.
Rodriguez Martinez (by his kin and next friend Martinez Hernandez) and anor v Chief Immigration Officer [2022] UKPC 29 (14 July 2022)
Partially successful appeal from Trinidad and Tobago CA – R and M Venezuelan nationals who entered Trinidad and Tobago by boat – R minor in mother, M’s, care - Said fled Venezuela due to humanitarian crisis occurring there -
M subject to deportation order and both detained in immigration detention - Both submitted Constitutional Motion contesting deportation, under which courts issued interim injunctions prohibiting Chief Immigration Officer from removing them from Trinidad and Tobago -
In January 2021, both applied for Habeas Corpus writ alleging that were unlawfully imprisoned - HC refused to order release - CA upheld decision –R and M appealed to PC –
PC made declaration that R unlawfully detained between 15 December 2020 and 16 March 2022 - Any question as to validity deportation order dated 16 March 2022 for Trinidad and Tobago courts to decide – PC also set aside CA ruling that were detained for reasonable period – But not appropriate for PC to form own assessment – Issue remitted to Trinidad and Tobago HC for further assessment – Appeal partly allowed.