New Zealand Supreme Court

Murder, assault, three-month-old daughter 

Topp v R [2025] NZSC 164 (17 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – T convicted of murdering three-month-old daughter and two earlier assaults on her – CA dismissed T’s appeal against conviction – Applied for leave to appeal to SC – 

SC said CA applying settled principles to facts – No matter of general or public importance arose – No risk of miscarriage of justice – Nothing applicant raised suggested CA erred in conclusions on any of three grounds – Application dismissed. 

Evidence, absence of lies direction, inference direction, fresh evidence 

Dunn v R [2025] NZSC 163 (18 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – D, owned paint business, BDCL – Convicted following jury trial of seven charges of possessing and supplying industrial chemical hypophosphorous acid (HPA) for manufacturing methamphetamine – Crown case circumstantial, depending on inferences being drawn from several evidence strands – D said HPA legitimately used in paint business as paint stripper and thinner, and in anti-rust treatment – 

D appealed convictions to CA, raising several grounds including absence of lies direction, inadequate directions on inferences, inversion of burden of proof and improper reference to potential methamphetamine yield – After hearing, sought to reopen appeal and adduce fresh evidence from forensic accountant, P, challenging Crown’s financial analysis – Evidence prepared for separate proceeding under Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act 2009 – D initially sought to appeal against sentence as well as convictions but later abandoned that appeal – 

CA declined to admit fresh evidence and dismissed appeal – Said no error in trial Judge’s directions and concluded P’s evidence lacked cogency, being speculative and inconsistent trial evidence – D sought leave to appeal CA’s judgment to SC – 

SC said lack of lies direction did not mean D’s trial unfair, or conviction unsafe: Counsel addressed lying allegations directly and at length in closing, presenting alternative, innocent explanation clearly to jury – Jury did not accept Crown case uncritically or assume D necessarily guilty – Acquitted D of charges stemming from first HPA shipment – Inferential reasoning issue raised no matter of general or public importance – No reasonably arguable error in Courts below so to give rise to risk of substantial miscarriage of justice –

Regarding proposed new evidence, SC said deficiencies in P’s proposed evidence meant no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice raised – Application dismissed. 

Parole, “undue risk” assessment 

Grinder v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 165 (18 November 2025) 

Successful appeal – Appeal concerns test Parole Board (Board) applied when deciding whether to impose, vary or discharge special conditions under Parole Act 2002, and relevance of “undue risk” to assessment – 

G sentenced to preventive detention in 2003 following extensive history of sexual offending against children and young people – Released on parole in April 2019, subject to conditions, including whereabouts and electronic monitoring –

In 2021, G applied to Board for discharge of whereabouts and electronic monitoring conditions – Updated psychological report assessed G as low risk, relative to other individuals with similar offending, of further sexual offending in next five years – Board declined application, noting in particular “[w]hatever the current accurate assessment of risk is, it is not no risk” – Panel convenor upheld Board’s decision on review –  

G commenced HC proceedings, seeking to judicially review Board and reviewer decisions – Said Board applied wrong legal test, in substance applying “no risk” rather than “undue risk” threshold – In other words, Board ought to have assessed whether conditions necessary to manage undue risk to community safety –  

HC upheld judicial review application saying “undue risk” test applied not just to release and recall decisions but also to special conditions of release – HC remitted application to Board for reconsideration, saying question for Board whether “the continuation of the special conditions [was] a reasonable, necessary and proportionate means of ensuring the applicant does not represent an undue risk to the community” - On directed reconsideration, Board discharged electronic monitoring conditions but maintained whereabouts condition –

CA allowed Attorney-General and Board appeal and set aside HC decision – 

SC granted G leave to appeal against CA decision – Approved question whether CA correct to allow appeal and, in particular, proper approach to imposition, variation or discharge of special conditions when person subject to preventive detention granted release on parole – 

SC majority allowed appeal – Said HC formulation of test correct: Board required, using contemporary information as to likelihood of further offending and nature and seriousness of any likely further offending, to ask itself whether continuing special conditions reasonable, necessary and proportionate means of ensuring G did not represent undue risk to community –  

SC said HC ruling consistent with Parole Act 2002 and s 5 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 requirements – Regarding latter, said Parole Act had built-in proportionality analysis – Said Board did not undertake proportionality analysis – Given Board had already reconsidered G’s application as HC directed, appropriate relief to set aside CA decision and reinstate HC ruling – Appeal allowed. 

Self-represented litigant, judgment recall

Erwood v Minchin [2025] NZSC 168 (20 November 2025) 

Unsuccessful recall application – Self-represented E sought recall of September 2025 SC decision dismissing application for time extension to file application for leave to appeal and awarding costs of $500 in favour of first respondent, M – 

SC said E’s submissions largely attempted to re-litigate issues already decided – Nothing raised casts any doubt upon conclusion, no merit in E’s leave application – Nor did anything raised throw doubt on conclusion costs should be awarded to successful party in usual way – Application dismissed. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Property, application to sustain caveat, sale and purchase agreement, affirmation of contract

Sydney v Ngatapa Ltd [2025] NZCA 609

Appeal by S against dismissal of application to sustain a caveat – S lodged a caveat in relation to a sale and purchase agreement – HC held contract had been validly cancelled by N after S had not confirmed contract as unconditional under its terms – HC rejected argument N had affirmed contract after S had not confirmed contract as unconditional within time required –  

No reasonably arguable case of an interest in the land - No factual dispute as to key events and Judge was able to draw conclusion about caveatable interest – No clear or unequivocal affirmation - Emails exchanged by parties had not established a new agreement on varied terms - While an agreement may have been close, emails also identified what needed to happen before an agreement on varied terms was entered - Most of those steps had not taken place – S had not negotiated a further extension of time to satisfy due diligence clause so left himself open to original agreement being cancelled - Proposed varied agreement was never entered and original agreement was validly avoided - Appeal dismissed.   

Criminal, appeal against conviction, doli incapax, requirement to prove knowledge that wrong or contrary to law – Login required  

[E] v R [2025] NZCA 608

Criminal, appeal against conviction and sentence, home invasion elements, licence to enter revoked by criminal act

Hayde v R [2025] NZCA 607

Unsuccessful appeal by H against convictions for murder, attempting to pervert course of justice, male assaults female and threatening to kill - Co-offender found guilty of manslaughter – H also unsuccessfully appealed his sentence to life imprisonment with MPI of 17 years – 

No prosecutorial misconduct in way Crown argued case as evidence provided sound evidential foundation for contention H was primary offender - Section 104(1A)(c) Sentencing Act 2002 applied in relation to home invasion - Unrealistic to say victim had granted H licence to enter his dwelling in the circumstances - As for discounts, what matters on appeal was not the methodology but whether end sentence was manifestly excessive - MPI not manifestly excessive given circumstances of the case and H’s personal circumstances; in particular premeditation, two assailants and setting fire to the body in an attempt to avoid detection - Appeal dismissed. 

Criminal, application for extension of time to appeal conviction, trial counsel error

Timmerman v R [2025] NZCA 604

Successful application by T for extension of time to appeal conviction – Unsuccessful appeal against convictions for unlawful possession of prohibited firearms, magazines and explosives, and trespass -

Miscarriage of justice had not arisen on basis of trial counsel error or otherwise – T’s trial counsel appropriately advised T throughout the course of the trial and had not misled or pressured T into pleading guilty - No exceptional circumstances arose justifying overturning T’s convictions – Many defendants faced pressures and stresses as they considered a guilty plea - While T’s guilty plea occurred against the background of him experiencing health issues, he had not pleaded guilty merely to preserve his health, he made a rational and informed choice to plead guilty – T’s co-defendant’s acquittal also had not indicated any miscarriage of justice.   

New Zealand High Court

Sentencing, attempted murder, insanity  

R v W [2025] NZHC 3503 (13 November 2025) Grice J 

Sentencing – W charged with attempted murder after deliberately hitting cyclist with car – Entered plea of not guilty by virtue of insanity – 

HC ruled W labouring under disease of mind at time of attack, in terms of insanity definition under s 23 Crimes Act 1961 – Resulted in finding relevant acts proven but W not criminally responsible on account of insanity, under s 20(1) Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CP(MIP) Act) -

Disposition order W be treated as patient under s 25(1)(a) CP(MIP) Act and s 30 Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and be detained as inpatient for treatment purposes. 

Sentencing, manslaughter

R v Ali [2025] NZHC 3536 (20 November 2025) Lang J 

Sentencing – A pleaded guilty to manslaughter – Brakes on truck A driving failed, truck ran downhill, killing road construction worker working in its path – A should not have been driving vehicle deemed not roadworthy six years earlier –

HC said aggravating factors justified starting point of four years' imprisonment – Eight months (approximately 15 per cent) discount reflected late guilty plea – Further seven months (just over 15 per cent) reflecting remorse, rehabilitative measures A undertook and emotional harm reparation payment of $20,000 A agreed to pay to victim's family – End sentence three years' imprisonment. 

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Right to education, judicial review, ECHR 

Re Application by JR87 for Judicial Review [2025] UKSC 40 (19 November 2025) 

Successful appeal from Northern Ireland CA – Issue whether religious education and collective worship provided in school in Northern Ireland contrary to Article 2 of Protocol 1 (A2P1) European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), read with Article 9 ECHR, as incorporated into domestic law by Human Rights Act 1998 –  

Article 9 ECHR guaranteed everyone right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion – A2P1 provided:  

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” 

Here child, “JR87”, attended grant-aided controlled primary school in Belfast – As part of curriculum JR87 participated in non-denominational Christian religious education and collective worship –  

JR87’s parents did not wish her to be taught Christianity was absolute truth – Father (G) challenged legality of religious education and collective worship and sought judicial review against Department of Education – 

Successful in HC – HC said as religious education and collective worship in school followed Department’s core syllabus, not conveyed in objective, critical, and pluralistic manner – Although parents had statutory right to withdraw daughter from these activities, right not sufficient to prevent breaching A2P1 read with Article 9 – Placed undue burden on JR87’s parents, deterring them from seeking withdrawal, and risked JR87’s stigmatisation – HC granted declaration teaching of religious education and arrangements for collective worship breached both JR87’s and G’s rights under A2P1 read with Article 9 –  

CA upheld HC ruling religious education and collective worship in school not conveyed in objective, critical, and pluralistic manner – However, CA disagreed with HC conclusion parents’ statutory right to withdraw JR87 insufficient to prevent breach of A2P1 read with Article 9 – CA said existence of unqualified statutory right meant state not pursuing forbidden aim of indoctrination – Also, CA very much doubted fears of stigmatisation or of undue burden on JR87’s parents would have been realised in practice – Appeal allowed and judicial review application dismissed –  

JR87 and G appealed to SC challenging CA conclusion statutory right of withdrawing JR87 from religious education and collective worship meant no breach of A2P1 read with Article 9 – Department cross appealed contending HC erred in failing to separately analyse and determine claims JR87’s and G’s claims – 

SC unanimously allowed appeal and dismissed cross appeal – Said CA ought to have found that exercising right to withdraw JR87 capable of placing undue burden on parents breaching A2P1 read with Article 9 – On cross appeal, SC rejected Department’s argument second sentence of A2P1 related only to parents’ rights so JR87’s claim ought to have been dismissed – Appeal allowed. 

Supreme Court of Canada

Habeas corpus, prison, deprived of liberty, residual liberty

Dorsey v Canada (Attorney-General) [2025] SCC 38 (21 November 2025) 

Successful appeal from Ontario CA – SC asked whether judge could review refusal to move someone to lower security prison because they were deprived of liberty – Prisoners retained residual liberty, level of freedom inside institution – Security classification affected residual liberty because higher security level meant more supervision, limits on movement, stricter daily routines – Law said prisoners be held in conditions restricting residual liberty as little as possible – 

D and S both serving sentences in medium-security federal institutions – Case management teams recommended each be transferred to minimum-security prison – Senior correctional officials rejected recommendations, keeping inmates in more restrictive conditions than case management teams thought appropriate – 

D and S sought to reverse decision in Ontario Superior Court of Justice using habeas corpus – Said refusing to transfer them unlawful restriction on their liberty – Judge dismissed both applications, saying habeas corpus could not be used to review this type of decision – CA agreed – D and S appealed to SC – 

SC majority allowed appeal – Said denying a transfer to a lower security institution could be deprivation of liberty – Said habeas corpus meant to be broad and accessible remedy protecting against unlawful restraints on liberty – In prison context, inmate’s security classification directly affected residual liberty – Keeping inmate in higher security facility after wrongly denying request for reclassification unlawful restriction on inmate’s residual liberty – Said inmate seeking habeas corpus had to show deprivation of liberty and raise legitimate reason to question whether restriction lawful – If showed both elements, judge had to review decision – Appeal allowed.