New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 2 April - 8 April 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
T (SC 169/2025) v R [2026] NZSC 23 (1 April 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – T pleaded guilty to two representative charges of sexual connection with young person – Sentenced to eight and a half months’ home detention with post-detention conditions for six-month period – Discharge without conviction refused – Challenged the decision to refuse discharge on appeal – CA dismissed appeal – T sought leave to appeal to SC –
T 18 years old at time of offending – Complainant relation who was 12 years old – CA described relationship between them as “akin to that of aunt and nephew” – Incidents occurred more than once over four-month period and extended to full sexual intercourse –
DC said overall gravity of offending moderately serious – Judge discussed evidence before Court as to likely consequences of conviction but not convinced consequences out of all proportion to gravity of offending – CA essentially agreed with DC analysis –
SC said proposed appeal raised no questions of general or public importance – No challenge to three-step approach DC adopted – Ultimately, appeal would turn on applying approach to facts personal to applicant – Application dismissed.
Milne v R [2026] NZSC 24 (2 April 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – M guilty together with co-defendant H of cannabis cultivation and supply offences – M sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and H five years’ imprisonment – On appeal, CA reduced both sentences by eight months – M sought leave to further appeal to SC against sentence – Regarding sentence starting point, CA referred to guideline judgment for cannabis cultivation offending – Said starting point adopted for M consistent with that applied in similar cases –
SC said M reprises arguments made in CA, except regarding to starting point where advanced more fundamental proposition guideline judgment out of date –
Said clear guideline judgment should be revisited – Better done sooner rather than later – However, CA best suited institutionally to performing task given large number of sentencing appeals that come before it – Here reconsidering guideline would probably have made no difference because offending too serious – Application dismissed.
Brar v R [2026] NZSC 25 (2 April 2026)
Unsuccessful leave application – Jury found B guilty of attempted murder of HS in concert with six co-accused including JS who pleaded guilty prior to trial and gave evidence for Crown – B sought leave to appeal against conviction on one issue – Said trial Judge failed to give reliability warning under s 122(1)(c) Evidence Act 2006 regarding JS’s evidence – CA did not accept argument –
SC not satisfied necessary in interests of justice to grant leave – Although circumstances in which reliability warnings should be given regarding evidence of co-offender may in other circumstances give rise to question of general or public importance, not appropriate case to address issue – Nature of JSl’s incentive to lie obvious to the jury and central theme in defence –
Not satisfied s 122 direction could have made difference in particular circumstances here – No risk of substantial miscarriage of justice if leave not granted – Application dismissed.
Satherley v R [2026] NZCA 97
Unsuccessful appeal by S against sentence of two years five months' imprisonment imposed for burglary, possession of instruments for commission of burglary and possession of methamphetamine for supply – Starting point of two years six months' imprisonment for lead charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply - Offending fell towards bottom of band two of Zhang v R - S street dealer heading towards having a moderately commercial aspect to the operation - Uplift of nine months for other charges - Reductions of four months for time spent on bail and four months for addiction and related issues - Whether two-month reduction applied for unlawful search and seizure of co-defendant’s vehicle in breach of s 21 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) was insufficient –
Clear nexus between NZBORA breach and S’s conviction and sentence - Absent the breach, there would have been no discovery of backpack containing 17.5 gms methamphetamine and so no conviction and sentence – However, reduction for breach of S’s NZBORA rights should not be substantial just because breach contributed materially to conviction and sentence on methamphetamine charge - Five per cent reduction granted appropriate - Any higher would have been disproportionate and resulted in end sentence that did not adequately reflect purposes and principles of sentencing – Appeal dismissed.
[K] v R [2026] NZCA 107
R v Rajinder [2026] NZHC 574 (1 April 2026) Dunningham J
Sentencing – R found guilty of murder and had to be sentenced to life imprisonment – Key issue for HC minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) – Not much difference between Crown and defence – Also minor question regarding firearms prohibition order and reparation order –
End sentence life imprisonment, MPI seventeen years – Firearms prohibition order – Reparation totaling $8721.
Kession Capital Ltd (in Liquidation) v KVB Consultants Ltd [2026] UKSC 11 (1 April 2026)
Successful appeal from CA – Appeal arose from financial services regulation under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) – FSMA prohibited people from carrying on financial services business unless authorised by regulator, Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – People who held FCA authorisation known as “authorised persons” and s 39 FSMA said authorised person may permit another person to carry on financial services business as its representative – Other person known as “appointed representative” –
Section 39 required appointment to be by contract specifying types of business (business of a prescribed description) appointed representative permitted to carry on – Authorised person accepted in writing responsibility appointed representative activities “in carrying on the whole or part” of specified business – Authorised person could therefore limit permission granted to appointed representative to carrying on “part” only of business –
Section 39(3) said authorised person accepted responsibility “for anything done or omitted by the representative in carrying on the business for which he has accepted responsibility” – Client who suffered loss from appointed representative’s breaching FCA rules therefore entitled to bring claim not only against the appointed representative itself but also against authorised person –
Authorised person only responsible for appointed representative’s activities which fell within permission scope – Not responsible for any other business activities appointed representative chose to engage in –
FCA’s regulatory regime distinguished between retail and professional clients – Substantial institutional investors and other more sophisticated investors categorised as professional clients – All other clients retail clients – FCA believed professional clients did not need protection accorded to retail clients –
Kession Capital Ltd (K), FCA authorised person – In 2015 K agreed to appoint another firm, Jacob Hopkins McKenzie Ltd (JHM), as appointed representative – Agreement prohibited JHM from dealing with retail clients – JHM set up number of investment schemes – Despite agreement terms, all but one of investors in schemes retail clients – Retail clients Respondents in appeal – JHM’s investment schemes failed and investors lost their money – JHM insolvent and no prospect of investors recovering money from JHM – Investors therefore claimed for combined total of £1.7 million against K –
K resisted claim, saying, dealing with retail clients, JHM had acted outside scope of permission K gave and correspondingly outside scope of business for which K assumed responsibility – Consequently, retail clients not entitled to claim against K –
HC rejected this argument and entered summary judgment against K – Judge said dealing with retail clients could not be described as distinct ‘part’ of financial services business for s 39 purpose – Prohibition on JHM dealing with retail clients simply contractual restriction, which did not affect rights of third parties such as JHM’s investors – CA majority agreed – K appealed to SC –
SC unanimously allowed appeal – Said dealing with retail clients constituted “part” of business under s 39(1) – Restricting JHM’s permission to dealing only with professional, and not retail clients, K correspondingly accepted responsibility only for JHM’s dealings with professional clients –
Investors’ claim against K failed – Appeal allowed.