New Zealand Supreme Court

Habeas corpus 

Boyd v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2025] NZSC 18 (20 March 2026) 

Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented B sought leave to appeal CA dismissing appeal against HC declining B’s habeas corpus application under Habeas Corpus Act 2001 - Application challenged release conditions DC imposed in sentencing – 

In CA B said release conditions unduly restrictive and unlawfully deprived him of liberty, amongst other matters - CA accepted bail, parole, release or sentencing conditions might be so restrictive as to amount to detention, but not here –  

SC not satisfied proposed appeal raised any question of general or public importance – Said CA accepted possibility release conditions could comprise detention in terms of Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – But CA did not consider, on facts here, specific conditions in issue did so – No appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Criminal, appeal against conviction, sexual offending, pre-trial application for a non-party disclosure hearing, Judge’s directions on elements of charge – Login required

[J] v R [2026] NZCA 82

Criminal, appeal against conviction, elements of charge unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, discharge without conviction, name suppression – Login required

[L] v R [2026] NZCA 655

Criminal, appeal against conviction, admissibility of psychological report – Login required

[P] v R [2026] NZCA 176

Criminal, appeal against conviction, sexual offending, directions on counter-intuitive evidence – Login required

[R] v R [2026] NZCA 74

High Court of Australia

Constitutional law, separation of powers, judicial authority

EGH19 v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] HCA 7 (18 March 2026) 

Answers to questions of law to effect cl 070.612A(1) Sch 2 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) invalid as inconsistent with Ch III Constitution – Ch III related to courts’ jurisdiction under separation of powers - 

Following 2024 HC decision Migration Regulations amended to repeal and substitute new cl 070.612A(1) which authorised and required Minister to impose monitoring and curfew conditions if Minister both "satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the holder [of bridging (pending removal) (BVR) visa] posed a substantial risk of seriously harming any part of the Australian community by committing a serious offence" and "satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the imposition of the condition ... is ... reasonably necessary ... and ... reasonably appropriate and adapted ... for the purpose of protecting any part of the Australian community from serious harm by addressing that substantial risk” -

Context of cl 070.612A(1) otherwise unchanged, including two relevant features - First, rules of natural justice did not apply to Minister’s decision to grant BVR subject to monitoring or curfew conditions - Second, if imposed on BVR grant, monitoring and curfew conditions remained in force for fixed 12 month period from grant date - Non-compliance with either condition offence punishable by imprisonment term of between one and five years – 

EGH19 Papua New Guinea citizen, whose protection visa cancelled in 2024 - In April 2025, Minister’s delegate granted EGH19 BVR on conditions including monitoring condition and curfew condition – HC majority said cl 070.612A(1), to extent purported to authorise and require Minister to impose monitoring and curfew conditions invalid for exceeding regulation-making power conferred by s 504 Migration Act 1958 when power construed as subject to Ch III Constitution – This type of power preservation of courts. 

Bias, penalty stage of proceedings

Sunshineloans Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2026] HCA 8 (18 March 2026) 

Unsuccessful appeal from Full Federal Ct - After conclusion of liability stage, ASIC brought civil penalty proceedings against SL in Federal Court for contravening National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), SL sought orders trial judge recuse himself from hearing penalty stage of proceedings - Application based on apprehended bias, arising from trial judge's findings at liability stage about SL conduct and credibility of witnesses, in particular director P - Argument put in two ways: first, reasonable apprehension of animus on trial judge’s part against SL (broad argument); and second, reasonable apprehension trial judge might not fairly evaluate further evidence P proposed to give at penalty stage (narrow argument) – 

Trial judge rejected broad argument but accepted and recused himself on narrow argument, reasoning assessing P's credibility for second time would have involved "lack of propriety" sufficient to give rise to apprehended bias - ASIC appealed to Full Court - Full Court allowed ASIC's appeal, rejecting both broad and narrow arguments and ordered remittal to trial judge to hear proceeding penalty stage – 

HC unanimously dismissed SL appeal - Said no reasonable apprehension of bias arose - Trial judge's findings, while robust in language, all relevant and open to be made, and revealed neither animosity towards nor prejudgment of SL or P – Appeal allowed.

Supreme Court of Canada

Unlawful search, Canadian Charter

R v Singer [2026] SCC 8 (20 March 2026)

Successful appeal from Saskatchewan CA - Two police officers investigating complaint someone driving drunk - Saw truck in residential driveway matching description in complaint - Officers walked onto driveway and saw S sitting in driver’s seat, appearing to be asleep or unconscious - Officers knocked on window but received no response - Then opened truck door to wake S and smelled alcohol - At officers’ request, S provided roadside breath sample - Registered “fail” - S arrested and taken into custody - Refused to provide further breath samples – 

At trial, S said police had violated Charter right to be protected from unreasonable searches - Said officers did not have the right to enter driveway without warrant - Judge disagreed and said officers’ actions did not violate Charter - S convicted – 

Saskatchewan CA allowed S’s appeal – Said police violated S’s Charter right and ruled evidence obtained after officers opened truck door should not be used in court - Set aside conviction and entered acquittal - Crown appealed to SC – 

SC majority allowed appeal – Said law generally allowed public, including police, to approach vehicle located on property for purpose of speaking with occupant - Principle also applied when police approached home - However, police exceeded the scope of the implied licence and breached s 8 Charter by opening the truck door –

Evidence obtained could nonetheless be used at trial - Deciding whether to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Charter, courts had to consider whether admitting evidence would damage public confidence in the justice system - Here police conduct not particularly serious and appeared to reflect reasonable misunderstanding of law – CA judgment set aside - Case sent back to CA to deal with outstanding appeal ground – Appeal allowed.