New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 10 July - 16 July 2025
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Deliu v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 78 (8 July 2025)
Unsuccessful leave application – In 2017 and 2018, D charged with two counts of assault with weapon and one of attempting to pervert course of justice – Left country in 2018 and not returned – Between 2020 and 2022, D requested proceedings stayed twice, claiming resulted from serious police misconduct – Deputy Solicitor-General acting under delegation from Attorney-General (under ss 9A and 9C Constitution Act 1986) declined on each occasion –
D brought judicial review proceedings challenging both delegation and refusal – Challenge on natural justice and substantive grounds – HC and CA dismissed application – Applied for leave to appeal against CA decision –
HC said should exercise restraint reviewing exercise of prosecutorial discretion including decisions regarding stays – D appealed – Before appeal heard Deputy Solicitor-General considered matter for third time, decided prosecution should be stayed – D pressed on with appeal – CA said appeal moot and dismissed –
SC saw no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice if appeal not heard – As CA said, D effectively succeeded in way that mattered most – Question whether further vindication by declaration appropriate – SC saw no reason to depart from CA view declaration of no utility – Application dismissed.
Deliu v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2025] NZSC 79 (8 July 2025)
Unsuccessful leave application – D sought leave to appeal CA Judge’s decision (acting under s 49(6) Senior Courts Act 2016) declining application to review Deputy Registrar’s refusal to reduce or dispense with security for costs –
Underlying proceeding related to judicial review of Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) decision –
Proposed appeal ground Judge did no more than rubberstamp Deputy Registrar’s decision, failed to engage with specific review grounds and in any event judgment plainly wrong –
SC said no matter of general or public importance arose, nor any risk of substantial miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.
G (SC 130/2024) v R [2025] NZSC 80 (11 July 2025)
Successful media access application – NZME Publishing Ltd applied for access to submissions filed in appeal – Complicating factor G applied for name suppression and for anonymisation of judgments issued on appeal – Counsel raised issues regarding whether suppressing G’s name necessary to support existing statutory name suppression for victim – Further issues re whether private information about G referred to in evidence and in submissions should be subject to suppression orders –
SC said appropriate path forward pending substantive appeal, application for name suppression and anonymisation, to grant interim suppression of G’s name, address, occupation and identifying particulars, and other private information about G contained in submissions (beyond information about current age, and age at time of offending) until further Court order – Would preserve position pending hearing of outstanding applications whilst enabling access by media – Conditional application granted.
Re Akarana-Rewi [2025] NZSC 81 (11 July 2025)
Unsuccessful application to review Registrar decision – On 5 May 2025, self-represented A-R filed initially unsigned notice of application for leave to appeal to SC against Deputy Registrar’s “decision” – Registrar refused to accept application for filing principally because SC lacked jurisdiction – A-R sought review of Registrar’s decision – SC Judge dismissed application.
[G] v R [2025] NZCA 301
[P] v R [2025] NZCA 305
[T] v R [2025] NZCA 307
Wharepapa v R [2025] NZCA 30
Unsuccessful appeal by W against sentence for three years and two months' imprisonment for family violence – Whether starting point too high and insufficient discounts given for deprivation and disadvantage -
Starting point of three years and six months adopted within available range - Relevant factors included: level of violence, use of weapons, attacks to the head, extent of the injuries, vulnerability of the victim, degradation and control of complainant - Offending occurred over 10 months - Sufficient discounts given for deprivation and advantage (alcohol and drug dependency) – In applying a six-month discount, Judge recognised impact of addiction contributing to W’s offending and rehabilitation steps – Serious case of family violence - Judge could not be criticised for referring to the purpose of sentencing which he considered most relevant in the circumstances, being accountability - Appeal dismissed.
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Davern [2025] NZCA 310
Unsuccessful appeal by QBE against HC finding that the company the second respondent IAG had contracted (Hawkins) to administer a large number of repair and rebuild projects arising from the Canterbury earthquakes, including the repair and rebuild of D’s home, had breached both its initial scoping obligation under the 2012 Agreement and its subsequent updated scoping obligation - HC found Hawkins’ scoping failures were primary cause of sequencing error and increased costs of constructing retaining wall -
Hawkins had breached its initial scoping obligation - Hawkins was required, under the 2012 Agreement, to provide a “detailed and accurate scope of works” to IAG for “each Rebuild Solution” - Hawkins breached its initial scoping obligation in relation to the retaining walls by relying on a preliminary and qualified report, which was not suitable for purpose - Hawkins had an independent and ongoing obligation to maintain an accurate scope and to update that scope when required, Hawkins’ scoping obligations did not simply come to an end once an initial scope had been prepared, regardless of how deficient the initial scoping exercise may have been - Such an interpretation would prevent Hawkins from being able to correct or remedy any omissions in the initial scope (no matter how egregious) - Hawkins was the only entity with full visibility of the overall scope of works - In such circumstances an interpretation that would require all variations to the scopes of work for a rebuild project to be customer or builder-driven would be commercially unrealistic - Hawkins breached its obligation to provide an updated scope – Appeal dismissed.
R v F [2025] NZHC 1894 (11 July 2025)
Sentencing – Jury found F guilty of manslaughter – 13-years-old at time — Killed victim with one stab in abdomen at street/bus hub area — Carried knife concealed — Produced when older/larger teenager confronted F — F chased victim, twice widely swinging knife, one connecting stab — F pleaded not guilty to murder — Claimed self-defence — Jury found F not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter —Rejected self-defence claim — Judge on sentencing ruled defence failed because conduct not in self-defence –
F applied for discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression — Principal grounds advanced youth; underlying mental health conditions, including ADHD and PTSD; and likelihood F, mother and sister would be deported –
Evidence of excellent progress to rehabilitation since offence — HC said excellent rehabilitation and reintegration prospects –
Conviction consequences not out of all proportion to offence gravity – Three years three months’ imprisonment — F’s name permanently suppressed.
R v Varrenes [2025] SCC 22 (11 July 2025)
Successful appeal from Quebec CA – Appeal asked SC to clarify when Superior Court judge could order judge-alone trial for murder charge, despite Crown refusal to consent –
V charged with second-degree murder of spouse – Jury trial scheduled for September 2020, during COVID-19 pandemic – In June 2020 requested judge-alone trial, allowed for murder charge under Criminal Code if both accused and Crown consented – V said potential pandemic-related delays to jury trials risked violating right to be tried within reasonable time as set out in s 11(b) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Crown prosecutors refused to consent to judge-alone trial –
V filed motion seeking order for trial by judge alone before Superior Court – Trial judge said Crown refusal to consent to judge alone trial “unreasonable or unfair in the circumstances” and proceeded with judge-alone trial – Trial judge acquitted V of second-degree murder but convicted him of manslaughter –
Crown appealed acquittal – Said trial judge applied wrong standard overriding Crown’s consent refusal rendering trial invalid – CA said Crown decision whether to consent to judge-alone trial falls within prosecution’s discretion; trial judge therefore erred in law by overriding decision – CA ordered new trial – V appealed to SC –
SC majority allowed V’s appeal, set aside CA judgment and sent matter back to CA to decide Crown’s other appeal grounds – Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal judges have advised that LawPoints falls into the category of a Law Digest where a decision prohibits publication in news media or on the internet, but allows it in a law report or law digest. LawPoints will sometimes include information on such decisions, but lawyers will have to log in using their lawyer ID to view the decision.
Request copies of other cases and articles from the Law Society Library.