New Zealand Supreme Court

Further evidence, submissions 

Work v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2025] NZSC 138 (15 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful applications to adduce further evidence and file further submissions – Earlier direction IAG had two weeks from date of this judgment to file submissions opposing leave – Court would then decide leave application on papers – Reasons for dismissing interlocutory applications in that judgment – Applications dismissed. 

Murder, time extension appeal 

Renata v R [2025] NZSC 140 (15 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful time extension application – R convicted of murder after jury trial – Sentenced October 2022 to life imprisonment with 10 years MPI – At time of murder (February 2021), R 16 years old – 

Some 17 months out of time, R sought leave to appeal to CA against sentence on basis age at time of offending and personal circumstances meant life sentence manifestly unjust – CA declined application for leave to appeal out of time – Sought leave to appeal to SC directly from 2022 HC sentencing decision – Time extension required – 

SC said nothing R advanced called CA assessment into question – No exceptional circumstances justifying direct appeal – Application dismissed. 

Driving with excess alcohol, previous convictions

Keepa v New Zealand Police; Tahau v New Zealand Police [2025] NZSC 139 (16 October 2025)  

Unsuccessful leave applications – Proposed appeals concerned s 81(1) Land Transport Act 1998 (Act), which said if any provision required court to disqualify person from driving for period not less than specified minimum, court required to order “unless for special reasons relating to the offence it thinks fit to order otherwise” – 

Each applicant appeared separately in DC for sentence on driving with excess alcohol, contrary to s 56 Act – Because third or subsequent offences for both, court required to order disqualification from driving for more than one year –  

Each had number of convictions (12 for K, and five for T) for same offence – In each case, had been more than decade since last offence – For that reason, DC judge treated as first offenders and imposed disqualifications of six months, minimum for first offender, relying on s 81(1) –  

Police appealed to HC which said gap in offending could amount to special reasons relating to offence but 10-year gap not sufficient – Substituted disqualifications of one year and one day in each case – By that time, shorter disqualifications expired –  

Applicants sought leave to appeal to CA which noted conflict of HC authority on whether temporal gap in offending might amount to special reasons relating to offence – Concluded gap could not be special reason – 

Applicants applied for leave to appeal to SC – SC said three appeal grounds lacked sufficient success prospects to warrant leave – Fourth peculiar to facts – Applications dismissed. 

Access to recordings

Ingenious Asset Management v McConnon [2025] NZSC 141 (16 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – In context of HC proceedings against respondents IAM sought access to recordings of hearings and conferences under Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 – HC declined – IAM sought to file notices of appeal in CA against two decisions declining access – 

CA Deputy Registrar (DR) refused to accept notices of appeal for filing – Said appeals against interlocutory decisions – Appeal pathway for IAM to have sought and obtained leave to appeal from HC – Had not followed pathway, no jurisdiction for appeals – 

CA Judge declined applications to review – IAM sought leave to appeal to SC from CA Judge decision – Also sought clarification as to correct parties, saying respondents’ rights not engaged when DR refused to accept documents for filing or when CA Judge declined review applications – First, second, fourth and fifth respondents oppose any change to parties, but all respondents abided SC leave decision – 

SC said nothing IAM raised in interests of justice to hear and determine proposed appeal – Would largely have SC reprise arguments CA addressed – Prospects of success not such to warrant SC determination, particularly where, on information before Court, underlying access applications did not appear to have great deal of merit – Applications dismissed. 

Self-represented litigant, direct appeal from District Court, time extension 

Parker v New Zealand Police [2025] NZSC 142 (16 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful time extension application – Self-represented P convicted in two DC judge-alone trials – First involved assault and intentional damage to cellphone – Convicted on latter charge – Incident occurred 22 June 2020, hearing 14 January 2021 – Second trial involved threatening to injure person with intent to frighten – Occurred 23 July 2020, hearing 17 March 2021 – Both cases arose out of ill-feeling between neighbours –  

In June 2024, some three years out of time, P sought to appeal to HC – Declined time extension, principally because did not adequately explain delay and no compelling reason to extend time –  

In October 2024, CA Deputy Registrar (DR) declined to accept appeal for filing saying time extension refusal not “determination of the person’s first appeal” which could be appealed under s 237(1) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – P applied for review of decision – In December 2024, CA Judge ruled said decision plainly correct –  

P sought leave to appeal to SC March 2025, Judge confirmed Registrar’s decision SC lacked jurisdiction – Said P might be able to apply for time extension and leave to appeal direct from DC decisions – P applied – 

SC said could only hear appeal direct from DC in exceptional circumstances – However, discretion subject to appeal provisions in pt 6 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – Here, Act barred SC from acting as first appeal court as convictions in question for category 2 offences – Leave refused for want of jurisdiction. 

Murder, sentencing 

Te Tomo v R [2025] NZSC 143 (16 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – T convicted in 2015 of murder (having shot victim) and sentenced to life imprisonment with 10 years six months MPI – Jury verdict, rejected T’s contention at trial of reasonable possibility gun went off accidentally – 

On 30 July 2016 (some nine months out of time), T filed appeal against conviction and sentence in CA – Granted time extension and in 2017 T's appeal against conviction dismissed –  

Sentence appeal not dealt with at same time as conviction appeal – CA dismissed sentence appeal on 3 July 2025 – T sought leave to appeal to SC against CA sentence decision –  

SC said no issue of general or public importance or risk of miscarriage of justice here – Application dismissed. 

Costs, order by consent

J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, T v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 144 

Successful costs application – By consent: (a) First and fourth respondents pay J appellant one set of costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements – (b) Costs in CA, HC remitted to those Courts to determine costs in absence of agreement between parties. 

Self-represented litigant, claim against Governor-General 

Grant v Governor-General [2025] NZSC 146 (22 October 2025) 

Unsuccessful leave application – HC struck out self-represented G’s application for judicial review as plain abuse of process under r 5.35B High Court Rules 2016 – CA dismissed appeal – Sought leave to appeal to SC – 

Judicial review application concerned DC decisions directing (under s 26(3) Criminal Procedure Act 2011) G’s charging document not be accepted for filing as insufficient evidence to justify trial and proposed prosecution was otherwise abuse of process – 

Proposed prosecution against Governor-General related to numerous alleged state agency failings in dealings with G – 

HC said no identifiable review ground – CA agreed – SC said proposed appeal had same difficulties – Acknowledge G’s sense of grievance, but plainly relitigating past civil claims and/or pursuing actions that could not be subject of prosecution against Governor-General in her official capacity – Application dismissed. 

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal pre-trial admissibility ruling, sexual conduct, reasonable belief in consent – Login required 

R v O [2025] NZCA 550 

Civil procedure, extension of time

He v Chen [2025] NZCA 556 

Unsuccessful application for extension of time to file case on appeal and for hearing date - H appealed against decision dismissing his claim against C – Claim arose from commercial relationship in which milk formula was exported from New Zealand to Hong Kong and China – H asserted that a joint venture existed –  Relevant events occurred between 2007 and 2012 – Proceedings did not go to trial until 2024 - H filed appeal within time but failed to apply for a hearing date or file a case on appeal within time – Appeal was abandoned – H applied for extension of time seeking orders reinstating appeal and allowing time to file case on appeal and seek a hearing date –  

H’s explanation relating to delay not accepted – H had sufficient experience of court processes to know time frames must be complied with – All of H’s claims have been unsuccessful and all were accompanied by delays and failures by H to comply with timetable orders – C would be prejudiced if extension granted – There was no need to determine whether appeal had any merit – H’s conduct over course of proceedings counts heavily against him - C entitled to see dispute over matters finalised - 

Application for extension of time declined. 

Criminal law, appeal against sentence, manufacturing methamphetamine

S v R [2025] NZCA 559 

Unsuccessful appeal against sentence of 5 years 10 months' imprisonment for manufacturing methamphetamine (meth)  – S submitted sentence was manifestly excessive, starting point of 9 years was too high and not enough credit given for guilty plea – Offending fell in band 4 of R v Zhang - S’s role was at the lower end of “significant” – 15 per cent discount was given for guilty plea due to timing of the plea and strength of the Crown case – 20 per cent credit was given for personal factors – S says he manufactured meth as he owed a drug debt – There was a discrepancy at sentencing in relation to the debt – S had stated he owed $10,000 – Alcohol and other drug assessment report referred to the debt as $100,000 – As the role S played in the drug operation was affected by pressure to repay the drug debt (rather than financial gain in the true sense) the starting point should have been lower –  

Although there was a discrepancy in the amount of the drug debt, the sentencing Judge correctly identified S’s role as falling toward the lower end of “significant” – S had previous convictions for manufacturing meth – Whether S was or was not anticipating some financial gain beyond repayment of his debt, a starting point above 8 years was called for – No valid comparison could be drawn between instances of offending to support personal drug addiction and S’s offending, where he deliberately chose to engage in unlawful manufacturing on a commercial scale in order to expunge a debt which itself had arisen through earlier serious drug offending – 9-year starting point within range – 15 per cent discount for guilty plea appropriate – S failed to establish sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed. 

New Zealand High Court

Sentencing, murder, manslaughter 

R v Biddle [2025] NZHC 3105 (17 October 2025) Johnstone J 

Sentencing – Jury found B and R guilty of murder and G and T guilty of manslaughter – All members of Whakatane-based Aotearoa chapter of Tribesman gang: R president, G vice president, B sergeant at arms and T patched member – Learned H made unauthorised purchases using chapter's bank account, agreed to punish H – H taken to chapter's meeting place next to R's home – 

B and R sentenced to life imprisonment – Found equally culpable: B taking part in actual assault and R, despite possibly being surprised by assault severity, arranging and authorising it – Starting MPI for both 13 years' imprisonment – Aggravating features included premeditation, number of offenders, victim vulnerability and practice of disciplinary enforcement by violence – No mitigating features – Taking into account B's personal circumstances, including severely deprived childhood, HC imposed 12 years MPI – 13 years MPI maintained for R as personal factors did not mitigate culpability – Despite having abusive childhood and previous substance abuse disorders, substance-free for nearly 20 years and held leadership role in gang –  

Similar aggravating features relevant for G and T – However, G sentence reflected no physical assault – T also unlikely to have caused fatal injury – Six years six months starting point for T, G's starting point five years six months – G had difficult childhood, witnessing family and gang violence, and abusing alcohol and cannabis from age 10 – Sentenced to five years' imprisonment – T's final sentence of four years six months included reductions: 10 per cent for age (20) at time of offending, 5 per cent for previous good character, 10 per cent for deprived background and six-months for 30 months on EM bail.