New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 18 September - 24 September 2025
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
T (SC 95-2024) v Te Whata Ora Health New Zealand [2025] NZSC 119
Unsuccessful appeal from unsuccessful habeas corpus application – T faced five charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and one charge of obtaining by deception – T found unfit to stand trial and remanded to a secure facility under s23(2)(b) Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act) for inquiries to be made as to most suitable method of dealing with him – After 30-day period in s23(4) expired T applied to the HC for a writ of habeas corpus which was declined – CA upheld decision – Approved question whether CA correct to dismiss appeal – Issues whether T should have been released at the end of the 30-day period or whether he could still be detained either under s23 of the Act, or s168 and s169 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 –
Appeal highlighted issues with the interpretation of s23 – SC agreed with HC that s23(2)(b) must be interpreted to allow the remand to continue – Releasing person after the 30-day period expires and before disposition decided without any conditions, notwithstanding that a grant of bail was not initially deemed appropriate, would be at odds with Parliament’s imperative that public safety is paramount – Any limitation on the person’s rights arising from their continued detention after the 30 days has expired but before disposition hearing aligned with the scheme and purpose of the Act – Appeal dismissed.
Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2024) from CA441/2023 ([2024] NZCA 318) [2025] NZSC 121
N charged with bribery and corruption offence - Provisions stated no one could be prosecuted without leave of A-G – That function could be delegated to a Deputy S-G, but by S-G in writing - Leave to prosecute was given by the Acting Deputy S-G (Criminal) - S-G had delegated in writing the authority to make such decisions, but through an oversight the written consent of the A-G had not been obtained -
Majority decision (Glazebrook J dissenting) – CA correct in law that the defect not able to be remedied and trial was a nullity – Criminal Procedure Act 2011 would not save a defect that would make a nullity of the trial – Distinction between a nullity and a mere irregularity – Approval requirement indicated that the delegate must enjoy the A-G’s trust and confidence – Did not follow that requirement for A-G’s approval merely ministerial or administrative in nature – Necessary to maintain some oversight of what categories of cases should be delegated by the S-G – Prosecution was a nullity for the purposes of s232(4)(b) – De facto officer doctrine could not be used to remedy the defect in statutory authority in this case.
R (CA219/2025) v R [2025] NZCA 470
R v [M] [2025] NZCA 475
[W] v R [2025] NZCA 477
Va’a v R [2025] NZCA 473
Unsuccessful appeal by V against sentence of 11 years 3 months' imprisonment for importing methamphetamine – Whether starting point of 15 years' imprisonment too high given V’s limited role - Whether total discounts of 25 per cent were too low and failed to properly reflect V’s guilty plea, cultural background and remorse –
V had a key role in facilitating the importation, not limited to passive receipt - V played an operational and active part, he had consignments sent to himself personally and made all key arrangements with logistics company – V motivated by financial gain given his failing business and financial problems - Cultural factors did not justify a greater discount – Degree of familial and cultural deprivation not causative of offending – Appeal dismissed.
Middlemass v R [2025] NZCA 478
Successful appeal by M against a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment for strangulation and male assaults female – Starting point of 42 months adopted - Total reductions of 35 per cent for mitigating factors - Shramka v R declined to adopt sentencing bands for strangulation, preferring an approach based on presence of up to eight aggravating factors and an assessment of their intensity - Three aggravating features were present: vulnerability of the victim; threats to kill and enduring harm to the victim –
Offending arose from a spontaneous loss of self-control during a heated argument at end of relationship - Period of strangulation relatively brief and no accompanying coercive or controlling behaviours - Offending fell well short of moderate band adopted in DC - Six-month uplift applied for male assaults female excessive - Assault was of low seriousness - Global starting point on both charges of two years three months' imprisonment appropriate - Non-custodial sentence least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances – M had no previous convictions, ran a business and engaged in rehabilitation – Appeal allowed - Sentence of six months' home detention imposed.
Westgate Town Centre Ltd (In Liq) v Auckland Council [2025] NZCA 474
Unsuccessful appeal by NZRPG against decision that Auckland Council (Council) and Auckland Transport (AT) had not breached any applicable contractual obligations – Development of Westgate Town Centre - NZRPG worked with Waitakere City to develop the Town Centre - Council also entered into further agreements with NZRPG in relation to the Town Centre - NZRPG considered that the Council and AT took a fundamentally different approach to originally envisaged - Contractual provisions relied on by NZRPG must be interpreted in accordance with well-established principles - Aim was to ascertain “the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time” each of the contracts was entered into –
Parties agreed from outset that their shared vision for the Town Centre did not create binding contractual obligations in the absence of more specific agreements - Contractual obligations were spelled out in subsequent contractual documents, but those were specific and limited, and had not created broader contractual obligations to deliver the shared vision - Contractual terms needed to be interpreted in light of that context, which meant there was limited scope for implied terms expanding the Council’s contractual obligations beyond what was specifically agreed, or for interpreting the express terms to similar effect - Appeal dismissed.
Kosicki v Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28 (19 September 2025)
Successful appeal against CA decision that criteria for adverse possession not met – Appellants bought property in 2017 – 2021, appellants discovered there was a strip of parkland belonging to the City at the back of their backyard inside the fence – Strip of land had been used exclusively as part of the backyard by the home’s prior owners since at least 1971 – At issue was criteria for adverse possession –
Majority decision (5:4) that no new judge-made rule could block ownership claims over municipal parkland – Would be contrary to the Real Property Limitations Act RSO 1990 which already exempted certain public lands from its application (municipal parkland not among exceptions) – Such a rule would undermine government’s policy choice to exclude municipal parkland – Criteria for adverse possession met for the required period before the registration system started – Right to become an owner through adverse possession preserved and appellants could be declared owners of the strip of land – 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.