Unsuccessful leave application – R sought leave to appeal convictions for doing indecent acts on young person – Said CA erred in holding propensity evidence properly admitted at his trial - R said CA decisions about admissibility of propensity evidence involving defendants and/or complainants either side of puberty not easily reconciled and resolving issue of general importance –  

SC said proposed appeal did not raise question of general or public importance - Correct approach to conduct engaged in by defendants at different ages not in issue here because propensity evidence was not led to show R had some kind of tendency as adult to offend against children - Nor is any appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.   

Costs, indemnity costs, “bespoke statutory process”

Belgiorno-Nettis v Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel [2025] NZSC 61 (28 May 2025) 

Unsuccessful appeal by S against conviction for common assault – S originally charged with assault with intent to injure (x2), a category 3 offence – Charges downgraded to common assault, category 2 offence - whether CA had jurisdiction to hear appeal - 

CA first appeal court for appeals against convictions entered by DC presided over DC Judge for a category 3 offence after convicted person elected a jury trial - Although S tried by a jury, he was convicted of a category 2 offence - HC was first appeal court - Situation distinguished from pre-trial appeals in which charges downgraded after appeal is filed, because relevant section for pre-trial appeals provided CA had jurisdiction over proceedings involving a category 3 offence - Not appropriate for CA to reconstitute as HC for the purpose of the appeal - S should file appeal in HC which would be treated as application for extension of time – Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Unsuccessful appeal by C against sentence of five years and eight months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to 15 charges, including burglary (x6), discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, theft (x2), receiving (x2), unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, possession of LSD, attempting to dishonestly use a document and attempting to pervert the course of justice – Starting point adopted of five years - C committed six burglaries which involved a degree of premeditation and attempts to avoid detection - One burglary was of a dwellinghouse, conducted with an associate and involved a confrontation - Judge uplifted sentence by two years and six months for reckless discharge – Crown unable to prove relevant firearm was not a starter pistol as contended by C - 10 per cent discount given for background factors - 

Available range for starting point between four and a half and five years - Judge’s starting point firm but available - Uplift for reckless discharge not excessive - Victims did not know when a gun was discharged whether live ammunition involved and significant risk of indirect endangerment or injury as a result of evasive action - Could also be psychological harm – C’s upbringing dysfunctional (parental neglect, sexual abuse, transient lifestyle, involvement with state agencies, exposure to drugs and alcohol from early age) - Higher discount of 15 per cent would have been unobjectionable - However, the Judge’s two further uplifts of three months each for C’s previous convictions and that second set of offending  committed while absconding, were not objectionable - Sentence not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed. 

Criminal sentence appeal, sexual offending, starting points, sufficiency of credit for personal mitigating factors – login required

M v R [2025] NZCA 196

Criminal appeal, sexual offending, joinder of charges, propensity evidence, interconnection in time, circumstance and location between the alleged assaults – login required

Z v R [2025] NZCA 197

Criminal conviction appeal, severance offending related in time, place and circumstance, cross-admissible propensity evidence, discharge – login required

[S] v R [2025] NZCA 201