New Zealand Supreme Court

Self-represented litigant, vexatious litigation

Rafiq v New Zealand Customs Service [2025] NZSC 136 (13 October 2025)

Unsuccessful application for review – Self-represented R applied for review of Deputy Registrar (DR) refusing to waive filing fee for leave application to appeal CA Judge declining to review deputy registrar’s decision on security for costs –  

SC Judge said DR satisfied R unable to pay filing fee – However, refused to waive fee because proposed appeal vexatious and wholly devoid of merit – DR said R did not raise grounds challenging correctness of CA decision – Said proposed appeal did not raise any question of public importance – Rather, formed “part of a wider pattern of vexatious litigation” – 

SC Judge agreed with DR – Application dismissed. 

Evidence, propensity evidence 

Reddy v R [2025] NZSC 137 (14 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Following jury trial, R convicted of one charge kidnapping, one representative charge sexual violation by rape, one representative charge sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (anal penetration) – Charges arose from repeated rape and anal penetration of victim over two-day period at his home –  

At R’s trial, propensity evidence adduced of similar allegations from another complainant in case where R acquitted – CA dismissed appeal based on two grounds: introducing propensity evidence error leading to miscarriage of justice and jury’s verdict unreasonable – Applied for leave to appeal to SC on basis CA wrong propensity evidence admissible –  

SC said law on prior acquittals and effects on admitting propensity evidence settled – No point of general or public importance arising – Nor any doubt on CA applying s 43 Evidence Act 2006 to facts here or risk of miscarriage of justice – Leave test not met – Application dismissed. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Criminal law, receiving, application for discharge without conviction 

Tauira v R [2025] NZCA 540 

Successful appeal against refusal to discharge without conviction - Receiving stolen property – Elderly victim scammed into granting remote access to computer – Enabled withdrawals from victim's bank account totalling $32,980 – One withdrawal of $8,480 was received into appellant’s bank account – Appellant’s niece had asked to use her bank account for the deposit - No benefit to appellant – Gravity of offending low – Appellant first offender – Accepted responsibility – Dishonesty conviction likely to affect employment prospects – 

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant was discharged without conviction -

Venning J dissenting – Would have dismissed appeal – That conviction would affect employment prospects, particularly as a bus or truck driver when appellant does not have licence for either occupation, was speculative and no more than the ordinary consequences of conviction. 

Criminal law, appeal against conviction, sexual violation, application to adduce further evidence, miscarriage of justice, recovered memory, expert evidence – Login required

D v R [2025] NZCA 541

Costs, extension of time to appeal 

Wang & Or v Body Corporate 406198 [2025] NZCA 536 

Unsuccessful application for extension of time to appeal costs judgment - Appellants owned units in an apartment development that was the subject of a partially successful leaky building claim in the High Court – Delay was 183 working days - One of the applicants also sought to be substituted as a party to the appeal –  

Application declined – Delay not adequately explained – Proposed appeal misconceived given one of the applicants was awarded costs – Appeal against award of costs not proper vehicle to achieve other objectives identified by appellants – Any award of costs limited to conduct of the parties in the proceedings – Appellants' grievances against Body Corporate concern internal disputes which have in part been addressed by Tenancy Tribunal proceedings – Application for substitution need not be determined until substantive judgment of the appeals. 

High Court of Australia

Telecommunications, unlawful interception, Commonwealth judicial power 

CD v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] HCA 37 (8 October 2025) 

Answer to questions of law that Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Act 2024 (Cth) (Confirmation of Application Act) is not invalid on either asserted ground – 

CD were charged with various offences – Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) sought to prove charges through electronic communications sent and received using application known as AN0M – Without ANOM users’ knowledge or consent, Australian Federal Police (AFP) accessed AN0M communications under warrants issued under Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) and Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – 

CD filed interlocutory application in criminal proceedings seeking, among other things, order to exclude AN0M communications as evidence on ground AN0M communications unlawfully intercepted in contravention of s 7(1) Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act) and were therefore inadmissible under TIA Act – Trial judge dismissed application –  

Trial judge stated questions of law for South Australian CA including: Did AN0M application and system involve interception of communication passing over telecommunications system contrary to s 7(1) of TIA Act? –  CA answered "No" – CD granted special leave to appeal to HC against CA decision – 

Confirmation of Application Act enacted after special leave granted – Confirmation of Application Act provided information or record obtained under specified warrants issued to AFP not intercepted while passing over telecommunications system and lawfully obtained –  

By writ of summons filed in HC, CD sought declaration Confirmation of Application Act invalid – Parties agreed special case, stating questions of law for Full Court opinion – Questions were: Is Confirmation of Application Act invalid, either in whole or in part, because: (a) it is impermissible exercise by Parliament of judicial power of Commonwealth; or (b) it impermissibly interferes with and undermines institutional integrity of courts vested with federal jurisdiction? 

HC unanimously ruled impugned provisions did not infringe Commonwealth judicial power or impermissibly interfere with integrity of courts vested with federal jurisdiction – Questions of law therefore answered unanimously in negative – Followed appeal moot and grant of special leave to appeal from CA judgment revoked. 

Freedom of political communication, visa refusal

Farmer v Minister of Home Affairs [2025] HCA 38 (15 October 2025) 

Answers to questions regarding Migration Act interaction with implied freedom of communication – HC unanimously ruled s 501(6)(d)(iv) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) did not infringe implied freedom of political communication under Constitution and Minister for Home Affairs (Minister), decision to refuse F visa valid – 

US citizen and resident F intended to undertake speaking tour in Australia in November 2024 – On 12 September 2024 applied for visa to enter Australia – 

On 25 October 2024, Minister refused to grant F visa because, under s 501(3) Migration Act, he reasonably suspected F did not pass "character test" – If F allowed to enter Australia, risk she would "incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community", meaning of s 501(6)(d)(iv), and also satisfied refusing in national interest, within meaning of s 501(3)(d) – In making decision, Minister said had considered F's profile as political commentator, author and activist known for controversial and conspiratorial views – Minister found risk of F's controversial views leading to increased hostility and violent or radical action –  

F sought declaration s 501(6)(d)(iv) Migration Act invalid as infringing implied freedom of political communication – Alternatively, F contended, in deciding to refuse to grant visa, Minister misconstrued s 501(6)(d)(iv) –  

HC unanimously said properly construed, s 501(6)(d)(iv) applied where, in event person allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, risk person would stir up or encourage dissension or strife in Australian community, or segment of community, of kind or to degree harmful to community or segment – Also unanimously said s 501(6)(d)(iv) did not infringe implied freedom of political communication – Majority said s 501(6)(d)(iv) effectively burdened implied freedom but any burden imposed justified – HC unanimously said, reading Minister's decision fairly and as whole, Minister did not misconstrue s 501(6)(d)(iv) in deciding to refuse to grant F visa.