New Zealand Law Society - Courts roundup 24 September - 30 September 2026
Decisions, proceedings and news from the courts in some common law jurisdictions in the past week.
Maskey v R [2026] NZCA 469 (25 September 2026)
Successful appeal against sentence of 6 years 4 months' imprisonment for importing class A drug (cocaine) – M pleaded guilty to five charges of importing 1.576 kg of cocaine into NZ between January and July 2022 – Cocaine was concealed in items including a muffler, a machinery injector, a motorcycle shock absorber and commercial catalogues – M initially acted as a "catcher" receiving packages for Nepalese associate R – R led the importation but after leaving NZ in April 2022 M's role expanded to coordinating consignments, arranging collection and extraction, and testing purity –
M appealed on basis the starting point was manifestly excessive and that mitigating discounts were inadequate – Grounds raised included mischaracterisation of M's role as "significant" and as having taken effective control in R's absence; undue weight on financial motivation; inadequate discounts for guilty plea, remorse, good character and foreign-national hardship; and failure to allow for M's relative youth and R's exertion of influence over him –
CA saw no obvious error in the 7.5 year starting point which it regarded as within range although arguably at its top – Found M knowingly assumed significant operational responsibilities after R's departure, had actual knowledge the packages contained cocaine from an early stage, and was financially motivated notwithstanding no direct payment was proved – CA also upheld DCJ’s discounts for late guilty plea (5 per cent), good character (10 per cent) and nil discount for remorse – CA rejected an allowance for foreign-national hardship given M's eight years of integration and fluent English, and rejected any allowance for restrictive bail –
CA accepted a fresh ground raised in argument applying Churchward v R that M was an "emerging adult" (about 22 at offending's commencement) whose immature risk-assessment capacities made him vulnerable to exploitation by R, who had acted as a financial mentor/saviour to M's failing business – CA held a further 10 per cent discount should have been applied to reflect this dynamic bringing total mitigating discounts to 25 per cent –
Appeal allowed – Sentence of 6 years 4 months' imprisonment quashed, and 5 years 7 months' imprisonment substituted.
Kim v Minister of Justice [2026] NZHC 2887 (24 September 2026)
Unsuccessful judicial review application – K challenged Minister of Justice’s decision that his extradition to China to face murder charge remained appropriate – SC had previously upheld extradition decision after considering diplomatic assurances concerning K’s right to a fair trial, freedom from torture and NZ consular monitoring –
K argued there had been material changes since SC decision, including deterioration in NZ-China relations, changes to Chinese law and human rights practices, and China’s treatment of other foreign nationals –
HC held there had been no sufficiently material change requiring the Minister to undertake a wider reconsideration – Evidence supported conclusion China continued to have incentives to comply with specific assurances given in K’s case – Changes in diplomatic relations and China’s broader human rights record did not materially undermine those assurances – Evidence concerning China’s treatment of Australian and Canadian nationals was also distinguishable from K’s circumstances –
HC rejected claims Minister failed to make sufficient inquiries or breached natural justice – K had been given an opportunity to make extensive submissions, and Minister was entitled to rely on official advice concerning the assurances and NZ’s relationship with China – No improper purpose established – Application dismissed.
Glenoir LP v Andrews [2026] NZHC 2654 (2 September 2026)
Successful application under s 317 Property Law Act 2007 to remove a restrictive covenant – Covenant registered in 2008 imposed various development restrictions, including on building materials and appearance, temporary accommodation, firefighting water storage and wastewater systems –
At time of creation, land was zoned for low-density rural residential development, with subdivision limited to an average allotment size of two hectares – Land subsequently rezoned Large Lot Residential, allowing substantially greater development, and resource consent granted for subdivision into 28 residential lots – Applicant argued covenant was inconsistent with changed character of neighbourhood and impeded reasonable use of land –
HC held the change in character engaged s 317(1)(a)(ii) – Relevant inquiry was the effect of the change on the benefit or burden of the covenant – Covenant continued to impose restrictions directed towards the former rural residential character and impeded reasonable use of land –
Impediment was of a kind and extent that could not reasonably have been foreseen when covenant was created – Removal of covenant would not substantially injure owners of benefited land – Application granted and covenant removed from title.
R (on the application of Quaye) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] UKSC 34 (22 September 2026)
Appeal from CA – Concerned sentence of detention during His Majesty’s pleasure during His Majesty’s pleasure (DHMP) imposed on people who commit murder while under 18 – Under a 2010 Secretary of State policy, offenders could apply after serving half their minimum term for a review which could result in reduction for exceptional progress in custody – Policy was withdrawn in 2021 and subsequent legislation provided for a review mechanism only where offender was under 18 when sentenced –
Q committed murder aged 17 years 9 months but was 18 when sentenced to DHMP with 15 year minimum term – Q argued removal of the review mechanism breached articles 5, 7 and 14 European Convention on Human Rights, including because it created a risk of arbitrary detention and retrospectively increased his sentence –
SC unanimously dismissed appeal – No breach of art 5 because Q’s minimum term had been fixed by the sentencing judge and the discretionary review mechanism was not an inherent requirement of DHMP – No breach of art 7 because removal of the review mechanism did not impose a heavier criminal penalty – Difference between offenders sentenced while under 18 and those sentenced at 18 or over was objectively justified and did not breach art 14 – Appeal dismissed.
Patel v General Optical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 1206 (22 September 2026)
Unsuccessful application for permission to appeal against HC decision – HC dismissed P’s appeal against finding of serious misconduct and impairment of fitness to practice by the General Optical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee –
P appealed to CA on sole ground that the HC appeal had not been handled to the standard expected, such that the judgment was unreliable – HC hearing had been conducted with a Deputy Judge sitting remotely from bed following surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon – Judge indicated he might have difficulty navigating PDF bundles and taking notes, described the hearing as more difficult than anticipated, and took a short break when he became tired – Delivery of final written judgment was then delayed by 16 months –
CA found the Judge had remained fully engaged throughout the hearing and no injustice arose from the manner of the hearing or from the ensuing delay – Permission to appeal denied –
However, judgment included postscript advising that the Judge should not have sat on the case whilst encumbered by his injury, since there was no urgency and other arrangements could have been made – A judge should only undertake a hearing from bed as a last resort, and should not sit if suffering from illness or infirmity impairing their ability to hear a matter fairly and properly – CA also commented on unacceptable delays in delivering the final written judgment, finding that it is incumbent on a judge who has provided a draft judgment to oversee its finalisation and formal handing down.
Sinclair-Desgagné v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) 2026 SCC 31 (18 September 2026)
Successful appeal against Quebec Superior Court decision dismissing application to contest results of 2025 federal general election in Terrebone, decided by margin of one vote –
Elections Canada employee printed incorrect postal code on return envelopes for several mail-in ballots, discovered error prior to polling day, but did not report it or contact affected electors – One elector's ballot was returned undelivered bearing the error and was never counted; elector claimed to have voted for S – Superior Court found the error was an honest mistake without dishonest or malicious intent and therefore not an "irregularity" under s 524(1)(b) Canada Elections Act, and would not, in any event, have exercised discretion to annul the election –
SC majority applied three-step test from Opitz v Wrzesnewskyj: whether there was an irregularity; whether it affected the result by affecting the vote count; and whether discretion should be exercised to annul – Held an irregularity need not involve intentional or dishonest conduct, only a serious administrative error capable of undermining a voter's franchise – The postal code error, combined with Elections Canada's failure to correct it despite discovering it in time, was such an irregularity – Inappropriate to consider affected elector's voting preference given tradition of ballot secrecy – Sections 239(2) and 240 of the Act place responsibility on electors to ensure their ballot is received, and intended to exonerate Elections Canada from contingencies outside its control, not from its own correctable errors – Discretion to annul was engaged since the one affected vote equalled the margin of victory, leaving doubt as to true winner –
Minority (dissenting), held error did not meet high threshold of irregularity, being minor, inadvertent and confined in its operation – Sections 239(2) and 240 placed sole responsibility on elector to ensure receipt of their ballot, and a low threshold for irregularity would undermine stability and finality of election results – Would have dismissed appeal without reaching remaining steps of three-step test –
Appeal allowed – Election annulled.