Unsuccessful leave application – D sought leave to appeal rape conviction – Said miscarriage of justice occurred – Jury not given reliability warning under s 122(1) Evidence Act 2006 regarding complainant’s intoxication – Also said CA erred when ruling not miscarriage of justice to admit expert evidence on intoxication –  

SC said proposed grounds of appeal raised no question of general or public importance – No reason to believe substantial miscarriage of justice might result if leave declined – Proposition jury needed direction or expert evidence on alcohol intoxication effects did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant leave – Application declined. 

Successful leave application – Related to costs order following arson charge dismissal – Approved question whether CA correct to allow appeal – Application allowed. 

Self-represented litigants, Immigration Act 2009, “absolute discretion”, jurisdiction

Wolfe v Governor-General [2025] NZSC 85 (18 July 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal by Forest & Bird against dismissal of judicial review application – Council had entered into an access arrangement regarding commercial forestry land for mining and coal exploration purposes – Whether HC wrong to find no error in the Council’s assessment of the significance of the decision to grant access or in deciding that public engagement or consultation was not required before making it – 

Council made decision not as a regulator but as a landowner - Key question for it to consider here was whether it should shift responsibility for, and control of, the decision to the Minister and, potentially to yield to the arbitral processes under Crown Minerals Act 1991 – A denial of access by the Council did not mean access would not be granted - While granting access may have opened the first “door”, doing so did not mean that the subsequent necessary doors would also be open - Difficult to see the legal basis on which climate change considerations should have played a greater part when the Council was assessing whether the access decision here was “significant” under Local Government Act 2002 or in determining whether some form of public engagement or consultation was required - Requirement to consider the “views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter” was met - Appeal dismissed. 

Unsuccessful appeal from Ontario CA – Decided same time as previous case – SB 16 years old – With two other youths planned and carried out killing of another 16-year-old – Victim lured into apartment building stairwell, where SB shot victim in head –Afterwards SB directed two co-accused to assist with covering up murder – Expressed desire to kill third co-accused who witnessed murder, as well as mother and sister – Youth justice court convicted SB of first-degree murder – Crown applied to have SB sentenced as adult – Youth court judge granted application, imposed life sentence without possibility of parole for 10 years – CA upheld adult sentence – 

SC majority dismissed appeal – Said CA erred in law, not applying constitutionally-required standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” to Crown’s burden of rebutting presumption of young person’s diminished moral responsibility – However, error had no impact on sentence – Considering reasons, record functionally and as whole, CA properly concluded presumption was rebutted (regardless of standard of proof), did not err in treatment of social context evidence when evaluated Crown’s position on rebutting presumption – CA examined evidence regarding appellant’s maturity and independent judgment, as appropriate under s 72(1)(a) YCJA – Further, no error in principle or in CA measure of SB’s accountability under s 72(1)(b) – CA engaged in balancing of relevant factors, including SB’s personal circumstances –  

SC said two prongs of application for adult sentence — whether presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness has been rebutted and whether youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to ensure accountability — must be considered separately – Social context evidence may be relevant to both prongs: first, may be relevant to rebutting presumption and may be used to place analysis of young person’s independent judgment in context; second, social context evidence may inform youth court’s determination young person’s moral responsibility to assess what length of sentence will hold them accountable –  

Applying two-pronged test evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that SB’s developmental age akin to adult – CA properly concluded presumption disproven – Moreover, adult sentence necessary to hold SB accountable – Appeal dismissed.