New Zealand Supreme Court

Self-represented litigant, review, recall

Re Akarana-Rewi [2025] NZSC 145 (23 October 2025)

Unsuccessful review application – Self-represented A applied for review under s 82(4)(b) Senior Courts Act 2016 of single judge dismissing application to review Registrar decision not to accept application for leave to appeal for filing – Judge also dismissed recall application –

SC said two proposed grounds misconceived – Application dismissed.

Self-represented litigant, costs

Pokere-Phillips v Trustees of Te Hanataua Trust [2025] NZSC 147 (23 October 2025)

Unsuccessful leave application – Self-represented P sought leave to appeal from CA decision refusing time extension to appeal Māori Appellate Court upholding Māori Land Court decision awarding costs against her –

SC said no issues of general or public importance – No appearance of miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.

New Zealand Court of Appeal

Criminal, admissibility of evidence, police search of phone, validity of search warrant – Login required

[B] v R [2025] NZCA 565

Criminal, appeal against conviction for sexual offending, Judge’s summing up, counterintuitive evidence, reliability direction, collusion – Login required 

[L] v R [2025] NZCA 568 

Criminal, appeal against sentence for sexual offending, breach of trust, vulnerability of victim, starting point – Login required 

[S] v R [2025] NZCA 567

Criminal, leave for second appeal against admission of evidence from warrantless search of house, s 30 balancing test – Login required 

[M] v R [2025] NZCA 570 

Criminal, severance of charges, principles relevant to granting leave to appeal pre-trial – Login required

[S] v R [2025] NZCA 575

Criminal, name suppression pending determination of appeal against conviction – Login required

AY v R [2025] NZCA 577 

Criminal, appeal against sentence, drug offending 

Birchall v R [2025] NZCA 566

Unsuccessful appeal by B against sentence of 11 years' imprisonment for representative charges for importing methamphetamine, offering to supply methamphetamine and importing MDMA – Court estimated 3.8 kgs of methamphetamine imported - Head Hunters’ commercial importation of methamphetamine and MDMA - Offending involved high degree of sophistication - Whether 15 per cent discount for guilty pleas should have been higher –  

Starting point for lead methamphetamine offences within range and uplift for importing MDMA could have been higher - Given commercial nature of offending, its scale, and B’s leading role; 20 per cent discount for B’s addiction issues and other personal factors could have been lower - Allowance of 15 per cent for guilty pleas available as pleas not entered at first reasonable opportunity - Without Judge’s rounding down of end sentence calculation, sentence would have been four-and-a-half months longer - End sentence, taking into account totality, not manifestly excessive.  

Criminal, appeal against sentence, starting points, discounts for personal factors

Milne v R [2025] NZCA 574

Successful appeals by M and H against sentences for cannabis supply offences following discovery of hydroponic growing operation on M’s property - They were sentenced to six and five years' imprisonment respectively - Judge referred to police finding 816 plants but evidence at trial had not supported this – M received discount of 10 per cent for age (66), previous good character and health – H received discount of 17 per cent for age (77), good character and the impact of his incarceration on adult sons - 

Appellants were sentenced for operating sophisticated hydroponic operation undertaken from a purpose-built and concealed bunker over period of two years six months, not the number of plants - Considerable margin applied in analysis of yield suggested Judge’s overall assessment of yield fair - Evidence established on at least one occasion there were at least 780 plants - Starting point not too high - Appellants' offending fell within category three of Terewi - Large-scale commercial growing, considerable degree of sophistication and organisation - Insufficient acknowledgment of combination of mitigating factors in global discounts provided, for both appellants - Court allowed further discrete reductions of 10 per cent – Sentence of five years four months' imprisonment substituted for M - Sentence of four years four months' imprisonment substituted for H. 

Property, compensation for access to landlocked land

Hamilton v Fox [2025] NZCA 578 

Successful appeal by H against amount of compensation ordered after access granted to F for landlocked land – H had not disputed F’s properties were landlocked or that proposed right of way easements would provide reasonable access to those properties - Judge allowed $10,529.74 as compensation -  

Nothing on face of record suggested HC orders had not granted “reasonable access” – H’s submissions at odds with contemporary records of title and relied on an instrument that no longer existed - Judge wrong in disallowing admission of rating valuations of F’s properties and cross-examination of F’s expert about an extract from an email sent by their solicitors regarding lost market value - H should not be limited to sum she allegedly agreed to accept by way of settlement, as it did not reflect what a willing buyer and willing seller would agree to - In determining appropriate compensation Court considered: detriment easements would cause to H; conservative estimate of increase in value to F’s properties; benefits to F of having access; historical nature of defect in existing easements; minor benefit legal access would provide H; F’s undertaking to meet costs of registering easements; value of H’s property not high - Total sum of $50,000 compensation fair.  

New Zealand High Court

Sentencing, manslaughter, dangerous animal

R v Wira [2025] NZHC 3148 (17 October 2025) Becroft J

Sentencing – Jury found W guilty of manslaughter of T – W lived on T’s property and owned pack of dangerous bullmastiff dogs – Six adult dogs and 17 puppies – W left property leaving T alone with dogs – W left more dangerous dogs inside rundown caravan on property – While W out, dogs escaped and mauled T to death – W's conviction at trial for manslaughter on basis failed to take reasonable care to ensure dogs did not endanger human life; gross failure; cause of T's death – 

First sentencing for manslaughter involving dangerous animal in New Zealand – Case law of limited assistance – Applying principles starting point of four years' imprisonment adopted – Six-month reduction for W's remorse and assistance to authorities – End sentence three years six months' imprisonment.  

Sentencing, murder, assault with weapon

R v Tahau [2025] NZHC 3149 (17 October 2025) Becroft J 

Sentencing – T pleaded guilty to one charge of murdering M and one charge of assaulting B with weapon –  

At time of offending, T living at holiday park in Northland – Partner, B, from Australia; and cousin, M – Leading up to night in question, tension arose particularly between T and B with T accusing B of having thing for M – On night of offending, all three had been drinking – Later that evening T violent towards both B and M – T hit B over head with broken mirror from which assault charge arose – During violence, brief periods of respite – During one intermission, T retrieved 30 cm knife and when another scuffle broke out between her and M, T stabbed M twice (in abdomen and arm through to lung) causing M’s death – T pleaded guilty on first day of scheduled trial for reckless and not intentional murder –  

No reason why life imprisonment not appropriate – Based on similar cases, starting point of 11-year MPI adopted – One year uplift for assault with weapon – Six-month reduction for guilty plea and further six months for personal circumstances – End sentence life imprisonment with 11 years MPI. 

Sentencing, party to manslaughter 

R v Lovejoy [2025] NZHC 3720 (29 October 2025) Gwyn J

Sentencing – Jury found L guilty as party to manslaughter – L, and co-defendant, TM, went into victim's sleep-out in Palmerston North to rob him of methamphetamine – When co-defendants dissatisfied with what given, TM presented firearm and threatened victim – L remained in sleepout and rifled through drawers – TM intentionally discharged firearm and murdered victim –  

HC said no evidence L knew of firearm before entering sleep-out, but did not leave sleep-out after firearm presented – Sentenced on basis L only became aware of firearm when presented in sleep-out, but continued to participate in robbery, knowing probable consequence TM would cause serious injury to victim with firearm – L not merely reluctant participant in robbery – 

Starting point seven years' imprisonment adopted – Ten per cent discount for willingness to plead to manslaughter three weeks before trial (Crown rejected offer) – 15 per cent for youth, L 19 at time of offending – Five per cent discount for impact of incarceration on young children – 10 months for 16 months on EM bail – End sentence four years' imprisonment – No MPI due to youth, lack of previous convictions, and low risk of reoffending.  

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Costs, appropriate currency

Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria [2025] UKSC 36 (22 October 2025)

Unsuccessful appeal from CA – Concerned costs order relating to The Federal Republic of Nigeria’s (Nigeria) successful application to set aside two arbitration awards in favour of Process & Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) and, in particular, whether legal costs awarded to Nigeria were correctly awarded in sterling rather than naira, Nigeria’s national currency –

P&ID, contracted with Federal Republic of Nigeria to construct gas processing facility in Nigeria – In third year of agreement, P&ID commenced arbitration proceedings against Nigeria – Arbitration resulted in P&ID obtaining awards in 2015 and 2017 totalling US$6.6 billion plus interest at percent (Arbitration Awards) for damages for repudiatory breach of contract –

In 2018, P&ID applied to Commercial Court to enforce Arbitration Awards in England – Nigeria successfully resisted application and challenged Arbitration Awards on grounds they were obtained by fraud and awards and way in which they were procured contrary to public policy – Trial took eight weeks in Commercial Court and Nigeria incurred total unassessed costs of £44.127 million (excluding interest) – Subsequently, P&ID ordered to pay Nigeria’s legal costs – Commercial Court heard arguments on currency of costs to be awarded –

Nigeria said correct currency sterling as costs billed by their English solicitors in sterling and Nigeria paid invoices in sterling – P&ID said, since Nigeria funded payments by converting naira into sterling from consolidated fund, currency which most accurately reflected loss Nigeria suffered in funding litigation was naira and costs order should be in naira – P&ID said award of costs in sterling would give Nigeria substantial windfall at P&ID’s expense – Naira value had fallen significantly against other currencies, including sterling, over last several years – Sterling amount Nigeria paid its solicitors approximately 25 billion naira at time but would now be equivalent of 95 billion naira –

Commercial Court ruled costs should be awarded in sterling – CA dismissed P&ID appeal - P&ID appealed to SC –

SC unanimously dismissed appeal – Said first, order for costs not intended to provide compensation for loss in same way as damages in tort or for breach of contract – Secondly, order for costs discretionary remedy determined by reference to all circumstances – Court’s task in costs award to identify reasonable amount paying party should pay as contribution to receiving party’s costs – Very different from damages award – Thirdly, court did not usually know how litigant obtained funds used to pay its legal fees and did not investigate those arrangements in order to ascertain that party’s loss –

No requirement in Senior Courts Act 1981 or Civil Procedure Rules 1998 costs orders be made only in sterling – General rule order for costs is made in sterling or in currency in which solicitor has billed client and client has paid or is liable to pay is consistent with nature of court’s costs jurisdiction and legal certainty – Commercial Court ruling within discretion – Appeal dismissed.

Supreme Court of Canada

Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, Canadian Charter

R v Wilson [2025] SCC 32 (24 October 2025)

Unsuccessful appeal from Saskatchewan CA – Concerned Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act which added section 4.1(2) to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which said people who sought emergency help or remained at scene of overdose could not be charged with or convicted of possession of drugs if evidence found because they called for help or stayed at scene –

Here W stayed at overdose scene after emergency services arrived – Police arrested W for possession of drugs and, during search, found evidence of firearms offences and identity-related crimes – W said arrest unlawful because s 4.1(2) gave him immunity from being charged with or convicted of possession and from arrest for possession – Said arrest and search violated rights under ss 8 and 9 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protect against unreasonable search or seizure, and against being detained or arrested without valid legal reason –

Trial judge rejected arguments and convicted W of most firearms offences and one identity-related offence – CA disagreed, ruling Parliament intended Good Samaritan protection to include immunity from arrest – Set aside convictions and found W not guilty on all charges – Crown appealed to SC –

SC majority dismissed appeal – Said s 4.1(2) goal to save lives by removing fear of legal consequences when someone sought help during overdose – Allowing police to arrest people for simple possession, when they were seeking emergency help or remaining at overdose scene would undermine goal and discourage calls for emergency assistance –

Said immunity from arrest part of immunity from charge or conviction – Arresting person staying to help at overdose violated s 9 Charter – Because W’s arrest unlawful, search following arrest also unlawful and violated s 8 Charter – Evidence collected from search had to be excluded – CA right to acquit W – Appeal dismissed.