IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Defendant
|
|
- Benjamin Hicks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 2237 UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972, Section 4 BETWEEN AND KARL NUKU Plaintiff THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Defendant THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Defendant Hearing: 21 September 2016 Appearances: Applicant in Person by AVL M Corlett QC (amicus curiae) and J Oliver-Hood I R Murray for Second Respondent Judgment: 22 September 2016 JUDGMENT OF VENNING J This judgment was delivered by me on 22 September 2016 at am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date Solicitors: Copy to: Crown Law, Wellington M Corlett QC, Auckland J Oliver-Hood, Auckland Applicant NUKU v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2016] NZHC 2237 [22 September 2016]
2 Application for review [1] Mr Nuku was convicted following a trial in the Auckland District Court before Judge Collins and a jury of one charge of aggravated robbery and one charge of unlawful possession of firearms. He was sentenced to imprisonment for eight and a half years. 1 [2] Mr Nuku appealed his conviction and sentence. The appeal against both was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in a decision delivered on 6 May Mr Nuku s application for recall of that decision was dismissed on 7 July [3] At the same time as pursuing the appeal Mr Nuku brought this application for judicial review. Grounds for review [4] In the statement of claim which he prepared himself, Mr Nuku seeks to raise the following grounds of review: (a) unfairness due to a breach of natural justice being the duty to act fairly ensuring that the procedural requirements of natural justice were met and that there has been an error of law ; (b) the application for a discharge pursuant to s 347 during the course of the trial on procedural grounds and illegality; [5] The first ground of review relates to the way the trial Judge dealt with the evidence of a Mr Banks during the trial. In relation to that Mr Nuku seeks: A declaration that His Honour Judge Collins acted unlawfully in not ruling the evidence of Joseph Banks inadmissible, and directing the jury on his evidence accordingly; and that I was therefore denied my right to a fair hearing, as prescribed for under section 25(a) of the NZBORA [6] On the s 347 issue Mr Nuku seeks a declaration: R v Nuku DC Auckland CRI , 10 June Nuku v R [2016] NZCA 179. Nuku v R CA7/2015, 7 July 2016.
3 on the procedural steps that His Honour ought to have done, but didn t; that failing to render a written decision, has left the Court Record deficient, and affected the obligations and duty of the Registrar; and that in the absence of reasons, there was no good reason for His [Honour s] decision. [7] He seeks to have the s 347 decision set aside as unlawful and for the decision to be reconsidered. [8] In a supplementary amendment to the statement of claim Mr Nuku also raised the issue that the Judge did not give the Crown an opportunity to be heard in response to his counsel s application for a discharge under s 347. Mr Nuku says that: amounts to such unfairness, as to have read down the statutory process, and therein voided the outcome. [9] The judicial review is not primarily directed at the conviction for possession of a firearm although Mr Nuku noted that there was a reference in the evidence of Mr Banks to Mr Pandey-Johnson having firearms. Factual background [10] It is necessary to put the issues Mr Nuku raises in their trial context and also to examine how the Court of Appeal dealt with the issues, to the extent that it did. [11] The Crown case against Mr Nuku on the aggravated robbery charge was that a co-accused Mr Pandey-Johnson and Mr Nuku together devised a plan to rob Mr Dingemans who was a former boyfriend of Mr Pandey-Johnson s sister. Mr Nuku was to visit Mr Dingemans. Once inside Mr Dingemans house, Mr Nuku would feed information to Mr Pandey-Johnson to facilitate a home invasion style attack. In his opening address Crown counsel characterised Mr Nuku as a Trojan Horse. The Crown alleged the attack was motivated by Mr Dingemans purported mistreatment of Mr Pandey-Johnson s sister. In accordance with the plan Mr Nuku went to Mr Dingemans house. He took a bottle of whiskey with him and proceeded to drink it with Mr Dingemans. Some evidence suggested he was seen to use a cell phone. Later, two intruders, one of whom the Crown allege was Mr Pandey-Johnson, entered the house and attacked Mr Dingemans and his flatmate and Mr Hutchinson. There was conflicting evidence as to whether Mr Nuku was also given a couple of
4 twacks. Mr Nuku s defence was that, like the others in the house, Mr Dingemans and Mr Hutchinson, he was a victim of the attack and was not involved with Mr Pandey-Johnson s attack on Mr Dingemans and Mr Hutchinson. [12] The Crown case against Mr Nuku was dependent, amongst other things, upon proving that Mr Pandey-Johnson was a principal offender. One of the witnesses called to give evidence of that was Mr Banks, an associate of Mr Pandey-Johnson. He and a Ms Davies gave evidence that Mr Pandey-Johnson told them that he had stabbed some guy in the face and knee with a screwdriver in an attack which was consistent with Mr Dingemans and Mr Hutchinson s accounts of the aggravated robbery. On Ms Davies evidence Mr Nuku was not present when Mr Pandey- Johnson made the admissions. Before Ms Davies gave evidence the Judge gave the usual direction that Ms Davies evidence about what Mr Pandey-Johnson told her was not evidence against Mr Nuku. [13] The Judge did not give a similar warning before Mr Banks evidence. In his evidence-in-chief Mr Banks said that Mr Nuku was present when Mr Pandey- Johnson made the admissions about his involvement. However, during crossexamination he changed that evidence. After Mr Banks evidence was concluded the Judge addressed that issue by giving another direction about Ms Davies and Mr Banks evidence: Things that they said that Mr Pandey-Johnson told them, the evidence is that when those things were said, Mr Nuku was not there. Now that evidence is evidence in the case of Mr Pandey-Johnson alone, so when you come to marshall and assess the evidence against Mr Nuku, you have no regard whatsoever to what it is that Ms Davies and Mr Banks said that Mr Pandey-Johnson had said about Mr Nuku. [14] The Judge repeated the warning regarding the use the jury could put Ms Davies evidence to in his summing up, but did not repeat the warning regarding Mr Banks evidence. The Court of Appeal decision [15] The Court of Appeal identified a number of particular points on appeal, including the ground of an insufficiency of evidence to support the conviction. The
5 Court also went on to consider whether there was a miscarriage of justice on any ground. 4 The Court accepted that the Judge s failure to direct the jury that aspects of Mr Banks evidence was inadmissible against Mr Nuku in his final summing up remarks was an error. However, the Court did not consider that error (nor other identified minor errors in process) were capable of affecting the outcome of the trial. [16] The second initial ground Mr Nuku raises, namely that the Judge failed to give reasons for declining the application for a 347 discharge was not considered by the Court of Appeal. Nor was the supplementary ground, that the Judge failed to hear from the Crown on the s 347 application. Principles/law [17] The starting point is that generally a decision of a District Court Judge to grant a discharge under s 347 is amenable to review, but the power to review a District Court Judge s decision under s 347 is only to be sparingly exercised. It is appropriate only in rare cases where by reason of the nature of the error of jurisdictional law in the District Court the intervention of the High Court is imperative (cf R v Crown Court at Norwich, ex parte Belsham; and Auckland District Court v Attorney-General). 5 [18] The need to sparingly exercise the power of judicial review is even stronger where an appeal right has been exercised. The Court should not engage in the exercise where the application for judicial review is in effect a collateral attack on the findings of a competent appellate court. [19] In Nicholls v Registrar of the Court of Appeal the Court of Appeal considered the relationship between an appeal and an application for judicial review. Tipping J, one of the majority Judges, held that where an appeal right has already been exercised and judicial review is undertaken: 6 the correct approach is this. This Court should first identify the error, or errors, which are said to vitiate the first instance decision. The second step is Crimes Act 1961, s 385(1)(c). R v Crown Court at Norwich, ex parte Belsham [1992] 1 All ER 394; and Auckland District Court v Attorney-General [1993] 2 NZLR 129, 136. Nicholls v Registrar of the Court of Appeal [1998] 2 NZLR 385 (CA) at 437.
6 to examine what effect the appeal has had on the error, or errors, found at the first stage. If the appeal has in substance removed the prejudice which would otherwise have resulted to the complaining party, the Court should exercise its discretion against relief, because overall no continuing prejudice from what went wrong at first instance can be shown. Analysis [20] To the extent that Mr Nuku s application for review depends on a challenge to the way the Judge dealt with Mr Banks evidence, and in particular the Judge s failure to expressly direct the jury in his final summing up about the use to which it could be put in the case against Mr Nuku, that issue was fairly and squarely before the Court of Appeal and dealt with by that Court. [21] Mr Corlett QC suggested that perhaps Mr Nuku s real concern was as to the admissibility of Mr Banks evidence. But Mr Banks evidence was properly admissible against Mr Pandey-Johnson. The point is that so far as it referred to Mr Pandey-Johnson s admissions it was inadmissible against Mr Nuku. The Court of Appeal directly considered the adequacy of the directions about that issue. At [85] of its decision the Court said, referring to the direction in the Judge s summing up in relation to Ms Davies: [85] Although it would have been desirable for the trial Judge to include reference to Mr Banks evidence in this direction, we have no doubt that the jury would have understood that the direction applied equally to the evidence of Mr Banks. As the Crown submits, because the evidence of Mr Banks related to the same conversation on which Ms Davies had given evidence, and given Judge Collins previous direction in relation to the admissibility of Mr Banks evidence, the jury would have been in no doubt the directions on Ms Davies evidence applied in the same way to that of Mr Banks. [22] Mr Nuku criticised the Court of Appeal for dealing with the issue in a cavalier way, but his remedy for such a complaint was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court rather than pursuing this judicial review. In making that observation I make it clear to Mr Nuku I do not consider there is any merit in his criticism. [23] For Mr Nuku to seek to pursue the judicial review on the grounds the Judge failed to properly direct the jury about Mr Banks amounts to a collateral attack on the Court of Appeal decision. As such it is an abuse of process. The following
7 comments of Lord Diplock in delivering the majority speech in the House of Lords in Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police are applicable to the ground of review based on the challenge to Mr Banks evidence and the way the Judge dealt with it: 7 My Lords, collateral attack upon a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction may take a variety of forms. It is not surprising that no reported case is to be found in which the facts present a precise parallel with those of the instant case. But the principle applicable is, in my view, simply and clearly stated in those passages from the judgment of A. L. Smith L.J. in Stephenson v. Garnett [1898] 1 Q.B. 677, and the speech of Lord Halsbury L.C. in Reichel v. Magrath (1889) 14 App.Cas. 665, 668 which are cited by Goff L.J. in his judgment in the instant case. I need only repeat an extract from the passage which he cites from the judgment of A. L. Smith L.J.: " the court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious, yet it ought to do so when, as here, it has been shewn that the identical question sought to be raised has been already decided by a competent court." The passage from Lord Halsbury's speech deserves repetition here in full: " I think it would be a scandal to the administration of justice if, the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant were to be permitted by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the same case again." [24] Mr Nuku s other challenges relate to the way the Judge dealt with the application for the s 347 discharge. As to that the Judge was entitled to determine the application for 347 discharge without hearing from the Crown. The application was Mr Nuku s application for a discharge. The Judge was obliged to hear Mr Nuku s application, which he did, but he had no obligation to hear from the Crown in response unless he determined it was necessary to do so. [25] That leaves the last issue, the Judge s failure to give reasons for declining the s 347 discharge. The Judge was entitled as a matter of practice and in the exercise of his control over the Court process, to dismiss the s 347 application and continue with the trial with reasons to follow. Judges commonly do so to enable trials to proceed so as not to inconvenience the jury with unnecessary delays. However, having indicated he would give reasons, the Judge should have given reasons unless counsel later advised they were not required. It appears from inquiries made on the Court 7 Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 (HL) at , [1981] 3 All ER 727.
8 file that the Judge has not given reasons or at least if he has, they have not been transcribed. [26] While accepting the Court should give reasons for its decisions 8 the Crown submit it is apparent from the transcript of the discussion between counsel and the Judge during the s 347 application itself that the Judge identified the application was made on the basis of sufficiency of evidence and, in the course of his discussion with counsel, discussed the evidence that was available. The Judge went so far as to accept that there was no direct evidence that Mr Nuku was there but considered there was an available inference. [27] Ultimately it is clear that the Judge concluded that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on both counts. He said as much when determining to carry on with the jury. The Judge s error was in failing to provide reasons underlying that decision when he said he would. [28] In this case the Judge s reasons could have been quite brief, namely identifying in broad and summary terms the evidence that he considered sufficient for a reasonable, properly directed jury to convict so that the issue was one for the jury. [29] As Mr Murray submits the point is in any event moot. As discussed with Mr Corlett, the reasons could have been provided after verdict. If that is so, it is difficult to identify any prejudice to Mr Nuku arising from the failure to provide reasons. Importantly, although the specific issue of the Judge s failure to provide reasons was not addressed by the Court on appeal, the Court did consider the strength of the evidence in dismissing Mr Nuku s appeal. As the Court of Appeal observed in their judgment in relation to the aggravated robbery: [29] Taken together these strands of evidence provided a sufficient evidential material basis from which a jury could reasonably be satisfied to the required standard of Mr Nuku s guilt; indeed we consider that it was a strong Crown case. 8 Wilson & Horton v Crown [2000] 3 NZLR 546.
9 [30] As Mr Murray submits, the approach taken on a sufficiency of evidence appeal point is essentially the same as a Judge on a s 347 discharge application. 9 [31] In the circumstances there is no prejudice of the type required by the Court of Appeal in Nicholls to support the grant of any relief in this case. The appeal has effectively removed any possible prejudice to Mr Nuku from the Judge s failure to give reasons for declining the s 347 discharge. It is apparent the Judge considered there was sufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to reasonably convict, which is what they did. The Court of Appeal has subsequently confirmed that the evidence against Mr Nuku was sufficient to support the conviction. Result [32] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Costs [33] The respondents do not seek costs. The costs of the amicus are to be paid from public funds in the usual way. 10 Venning J 9 10 R v Owens [2007] NZSC 102, at [17]; and R v Webb [2013] NZCA 666. Judicature Act 1908, s 99A(1)(b).
Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff. CLARE O'BRIEN First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-485-5611 [2014] NZHC 2886 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND an application under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for declaratory relief
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN VAINU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 29 July 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Goddard and Andrews
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 923. LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-404-000039 [2015] NZHC 923 BETWEEN AND LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 April 2015 Appearances: D Schellenberg
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI 2014-004-000413 [2014] NZHC 3294 BETWEEN AND CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 December 2014 Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 2483 BETWEEN. Plaintiff
NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 437A OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 1989, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2016-485-238 [2016] NZHC 2539 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CRI-2013-470-7 [2013] NZHC 1350 BETWEEN AND CHERYL MCVEIGH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 30 May 2013 Appearances: TA Castle for Appellant
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 596. UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2017-404-000402 [2018] NZHC 596 UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 BETWEEN AND DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM
More informationCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant. ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent. Randerson, Harrison and Miller JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA754/2012 [2014] NZCA 37 BETWEEN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent Hearing: 5 February
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-000062 [2014] NZHC 2423 PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant v Hearing: 1 October 2014 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Appearances: Rebecca Plunket
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant. PAUL HEATH Second Respondent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV 2010-419-000975 BETWEEN AND AND JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER First Respondent PAUL HEATH Second Respondent CIV 2010-419-001449
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA695/2014 [2016] NZCA 163 BETWEEN AND
More informationIN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2012] NZHRRT 9 SECTION 51 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 PLAINTIFF
IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2012] NZHRRT 9 Reference No. HRRT 012/2011 UNDER BETWEEN SECTION 51 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 ERIC RICHARD PILON PLAINTIFF AND VASUDHA IYENGAR
More informationCAMILLE IRIANA THOMPSON Appellant. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent. H A Cull QC and D A Ewen for Appellant S M Kinsler and A C Walker for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA590/2014 [2016] NZCA 215 BETWEEN AND CAMILLE IRIANA THOMPSON Appellant THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent Hearing: 24 February 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild,
More informationKARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Ellen France, MacKenzie and Mallon JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2013 [2014] NZCA 93 BETWEEN AND KARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, MacKenzie
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV [2018] NZHC 971. IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2016-409-000814 [2018] NZHC 971 IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND THE COMMISSIONER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 795. CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH OʼNEILL Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-2478 [2017] NZHC 795 BETWEEN AND CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH OʼNEILL Plaintiff KIT TOOGOOD, CECIL HARDING CROUCHER AND MATT AMON Defendants Hearing:
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA254/2014 [2015]
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA142/07 [2007] NZCA 424 THE QUEEN v GEORGE DARREN
More informationJOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Fogarty and Dobson JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
23 April 2015 at 8 am - DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2014 [2015] NZCA 137 BETWEEN AND JOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 5 March 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV [2017] NZHC Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2017-404-1679 [2017] NZHC 3158 UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, Part 30 of the High Court
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN. S N McKenzie for Crown
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI-2014-425-000043 [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN v Hearing: 15 December 2014 R Appearances: H T Young for Appellant S N McKenzie for Crown Judgment:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2016-485-781 [2016] NZHC 3162 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC UNDER the Judicature Act Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2017-404-001760 [2017] NZHC 1852 UNDER the Judicature Act 1908 BETWEEN AND RAZDAN RAFIQ Plaintiff ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Defendant SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV [2017] NZHC UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006 PRESCOTT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2017-404-1097 [2017] NZHC 2701 UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the bankruptcy
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2016-485-60 [2016] NZHC 2359 BETWEEN AND MATTHEW BROWN Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 3 October 2016 Appearances: Appellant in
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2005 BETWEEN DENNIS GABOUREL Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2015-485-17 [2015] NZHC 2235 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 June 2015 Counsel: A Shaw for Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-2845 [2015] NZHC 3202 BETWEEN AMANDA ADELE WHITE First Plaintiff ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Second Plaintiff AND CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JOSEPH BERNARD-BANFIELD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2009-01926 BETWEEN JOSEPH BERNARD-BANFIELD AND Claimant SARGEANT SOOKRAM REG NO. 9200 First Defendant THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC UNDER the Defamation Act Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-001988 [2014] NZHC 2064 UNDER the Defamation Act 1992 BETWEEN AND RAZDAN RAFIQ Plaintiff THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
More informationRICHARD LYALL GENGE Applicant. VISITING JUSTICE CHRISTCHURCH MENʼS PRISON First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2018-409-000212 [2018] NZHC 1457 BETWEEN AND AND AND RICHARD LYALL GENGE Applicant VISITING JUSTICE CHRISTCHURCH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2014-485-63 [2014] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 September 2014 Appearances: C
More informationAppellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA129/2016 [2016] NZCA 133 BETWEEN AND MICHAEL MARINO Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 4 April 2016 Court: Counsel:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2005 BETWEEN: JAVIER RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal, which is against both conviction and sentence, is dismissed. REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA592/2012 [2013] NZCA 339 BETWEEN AND MARK HETERAKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2013 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Heath and Keane JJ L L Heah
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2016-409-000046 [2016] NZHC 1297 BETWEEN AND SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 14 June 2016 Appearances: D J
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Miller J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA790/2013 [2014] NZCA 106 BETWEEN AND UGESH DUTT Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 4 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV [2017] NZHC NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2015-404-2800 [2017] NZHC 2865 BETWEEN AND NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT Plaintiff ATTORNEY-GENERAL AS REPRESENTATIVE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-002795 [2016] NZHC 1199 BETWEEN AND ALWYNE JONES Plaintiff AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant Hearing: 29 February 2016 Appearances: R Pidgeon for
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 598. Applicant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2014-404-67 [2014] NZHC 598 BETWEEN AND TEINA PORA Applicant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 March 2014 Appearances: J G Krebs and I Squire for Applicant
More informationDate of communication: 5 February 1987 (date of initial letter)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Robinson v. Jamaica Communication No. 223/1987 30 March 1989 VIEWS Submitted by: Frank Robinson Alleged victim: The author State party concerned: Jamaica Date of communication: 5
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC 492. FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2014-404-002664 [2015] NZHC 492 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an application for judicial review FRANCISC CATALIN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN REBEL WAITOHI. K A Stoikoff for Prisoner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2013-044-1109 [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 15 May 2014 REBEL WAITOHI Appearances: T M Cooper for Crown K A Stoikoff for Prisoner Sentence:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2012] NZHC TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2012-485-000098 [2012] NZHC 3447 BETWEEN AND TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 December 2012 Counsel: D A
More informationJUDGMENT. R v Smith (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2011] UKSC 37 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Crim 530 JUDGMENT R v Smith (Appellant) before Lord Phillips, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Collins Lord Wilson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 20 July
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA364/2015 [2016] NZCA 469 BETWEEN AND DEAN JOHN DREVER Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 22 September 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Brown and Brewer
More informationCriminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 CHAPTER 19 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES Appeal against conviction on indictment Section 1. Right of appeal. 2. Grounds for allowing
More informationORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUAPTION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUAPTION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED First Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-001733 [2014] NZHC 3192 BETWEEN EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED First Plaintiff LILIYA SOBOLEVA Second Plaintiff EVGENY ORLOV Third Plaintiff
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 21st October 2004
Dosoruth v. Mauritius (Mauritius) [2004] UKPC 51 (21 October 2004) Privy Council Appeal No. 49 of 2003 Ramawat Dosoruth v. Appellant (1) The State of Mauritius and (2) The Director of Public Prosecutions
More informationJOHN CHARLES STRINGER Plaintiff. COLIN GRAEME CRAIG First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE BETWEEN AND JOHN CHARLES STRINGER Plaintiff COLIN GRAEME CRAIG First Defendant CIV-2015-404-2524 [2018]
More informationBE it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with
Act No. 16, 1912. An Act to establish a court of criminal appeal; to amend the law relating to appeals in criminal cases ; to provide for better consideration of petitions of convicted persons ; to amend
More informationVILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Woodhouse and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA644/2015 [2017] NZCA 195 BETWEEN AND VILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 9 March 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Woodhouse and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :... O P I N I O N...
[Cite as State v. Hous, 2004-Ohio-666.] STATE OF OHIO : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 02CA116 vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 02CR104 BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal
More informationR v Gullefer. Page 1. All England Law Reports/1990/Volume 3 /R v Gullefer - [1990] 3 All ER 882. [1990] 3 All ER 882
Page 1 All England Law Reports/1990/Volume 3 /R v Gullefer - [1990] 3 All ER 882 [1990] 3 All ER 882 R v Gullefer COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION LORD LANE CJ, KENNEDY, OWEN JJ 4, 20 NOVEMBER 1986 Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA198/2016 [2017] NZCA 404. GEORGE CHARLIE BAKER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Hearing: 31 July 2017
NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT IN OFFENDING OF 27 AUGUST 2009 REMAINS IN FORCE. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LTD Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2014-404-1076 [2016] NZHC 1587 BETWEEN AND MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LTD Plaintiff DESMOND JAMES ALBERT CONWAY Defendant Hearing:
More informationCHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL
1 L.R.O. 2002 Criminal Appeal CAP. 113A CHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION CITATION 1. Short title. INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions. PART I CRIMINAL APPEALS FROM HIGH COURT 3. Right
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015
CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D (Criminal) Inferior Appeal No. 7 of 2016 BETWEEN: AND DECISION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2016 (Criminal) Inferior Appeal No. 7 of 2016 BETWEEN: ROBERT FLORES THE POLICE AND Appellant Respondent Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Shona Griffith Date of
More informationBefore: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES (Chairman) CLARE POTTER DERMOT GLYNN BETWEEN: -v- COMPETITION AND MARKETS AUTHORITY Respondent.
Neutral citation [2014] CAT 10 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No.: 1229/6/12/14 9 July 2014 Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES (Chairman) CLARE POTTER DERMOT GLYNN Sitting as a Tribunal in
More informationSHELDON THOMAS. and THE QUEEN : March 11; October
GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.11 OF 2002 BETWEEN: SHELDON THOMAS and THE QUEEN Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Appellant Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-044-002617 [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN v STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE Hearing: 24 February 2016 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown R M Mansfield
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2005 BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant AND ISRAEL HERNANDEZ ORELLANO Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley
More informationAhmad Al-Naimi (t/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v. Islamic Press Agency Inc [2000] APP.L.R. 01/28
CA on Appeal from High Court of Justice TCC (HHJ Bowsher QC) before Waller LJ; Chadwick LJ. 28 th January 2000. JUDGMENT : Lord Justice Waller: 1. This is an appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge
More informationIN THE YOUTH COURT AT AUCKLAND CRN: [2017] NZYC 375. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. H C Young Person
NOTE: NO PUBLICATION OF A REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING IS PERMITTED UNDER S 438 OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 1989, EXCEPT WITH THE LEAVE OF THE COURT THAT HEARD THE PROCEEDINGS,
More informationGRAHAM THOMAS ROWE Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. H Cuthill and S J Zindel for Appellant P D Marshall for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA113/2017 [2017] NZCA 316 BETWEEN AND GRAHAM THOMAS ROWE Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 21 June 2017 Court: Counsel: Clifford, Lang and Mander JJ H Cuthill
More informationTHE CHARITIES REGISTRATION BOARD Respondent. Randerson, Wild and Winkelmann JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Randerson J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA308/2014 [2015] NZCA 449 BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION FOR ANTI-AGING RESEARCH First Appellant THE FOUNDATION FOR REVERSAL OF SOLID STATE HYPOTHERMIA Second Appellant AND
More informationAppellant. JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Goddard and Clifford
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA169/04
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA169/04 BETWEEN AND TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent Hearing: 9 September 2004 Coram: McGrath J Hammond J William
More informationRULE 20 PLEADINGS GENERALLY
RULE 20 PLEADINGS GENERALLY Contents Form (1) A pleading shall be as brief as the nature of the case will permit and must contain a statement in summary form of the material facts on which the party relies,
More informationDomestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL]
[AS AMENDED IN STANDING COMMITTEE E] CONTENTS PART 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ETC Amendments to Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 1 Breach of non-molestation order to be a criminal offence 2 Additional considerations
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND Second Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-002481 [2015] NZHC 2098 BETWEEN AND AND AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Plaintiff JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND Second Plaintiff WEATHERTIGHT HOMES
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And. HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-00707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between ALVIN And AHYEW Claimant HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 60/2017 [2017] NZSC 119. VILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Applicant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 60/2017 [2017] NZSC 119 BETWEEN AND VILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA Applicant THE QUEEN Respondent Court: Counsel: Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ M I Koya for Applicant
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA409/2018 [2018] NZCA 533. CAROLINE ANN SAWYER Applicant. Applicant. 29 November 2018 at pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA409/2018 [2018] NZCA 533 BETWEEN AND CAROLINE ANN SAWYER Applicant VICE-CHANCELLOR OF VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON Respondent CA410/2018
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC TEAK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-0828 [2015] NZHC 2312 BETWEEN AND TEAK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Plaintiff ANDREW BRANDS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 22 September 2015 Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. DENNIS MAX HAUNUI Respondent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2015-409-63 [2015] NZHC 2456 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Appellant DENNIS MAX HAUNUI Respondent CRI-2015-485-52 BETWEEN AND PATRICK MILLER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV JOHN CAMERON SADLER Judgment Debtor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV2006-404-4528 BETWEEN AND INSITE DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT LTD Judgment Creditor JOHN CAMERON SADLER Judgment Debtor Hearing: 25 May 2007 and 1 June 2007
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Condon [2010] QCA 117 PARTIES: R v CONDON, Christopher Gerard (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 253 of 2009 DC No 114 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationJAMAICA. JEROME ARSCOTT v R. 10 November [1] On 10 February 2011, a young lady went home to find a group of police and
[2014] JMCA Crim 52 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 21/2013 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McINTOSH JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA JEROME
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2006-485-751 BETWEEN AND KEITH HUGH NICOLAS BERRYMAN AND MARGARET BERRYMAN Plaintiffs HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY- GENERAL Defendant Hearing: 20 July
More information574 [1969] REGINA v. GRANTHAM
574 [1969] [COURTS-MARTIAL APPEAL COURT] " REGINA v. GRANTHAM 1969 Feb. 20; March 20 Lord Parker C.J., Widgery L.J. and Lawton J. Military Law Courts-Martial Appeal Court Jurisdiction Right -n of appeal
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 614. UNDER the Defamation Act COLIN GRAEME CRAIG Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-2882 [2017] NZHC 614 UNDER the Defamation Act 1992 BETWEEN AND COLIN GRAEME CRAIG Plaintiff JACQUELINE STIEKEMA Defendant Hearing: 29 March
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-419-000929 [2014] NZHC 520 BETWEEN AND JONATHAN DOUGLAS SEALEY and DIANE MICHELLE SEALEY Appellants GARY ALLAN CRAIG, JOHN LEONARD SIEPRATH,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2006 BETWEEN: DONICIO SALAZAR Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationDESMOND WILLIAM COOK Appellant. Applicant in person K R A Muirhead for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA589/2017 [2018] NZCA 57 BETWEEN AND DESMOND WILLIAM COOK Appellant HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 19 March 2018 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Kós P,
More informationDECISION IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2014] NZIACDT 102 Reference No: IACDT 11/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationDAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. A J Ewing for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA428/2016 [2016] NZCA 592 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Brewer
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between CESARE BURKE. And HIS WORSHIP DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE MR. PATRICK MARK WELLINGTON
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2013-05041 Between CESARE BURKE Applicant/Claimant And HIS WORSHIP DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE MR. PATRICK MARK WELLINGTON Respondent/Defendant
More informationBefore : DAVID CASEMENT QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 7 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/5130/2012 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 09/01/2015
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER t h e Defamation Act 1992 section 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-092-1026 [2016] NZHC 3006 UNDER t h e Defamation Act 1992 section 35 BETWEEN M E L I S S A JEAN OPAI Plaintiff AND L A U R I E CULPAN First Defendant
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 182 ARC 21/14. Plaintiff. SHARP TUDHOPE LAWYERS Defendant. P A Caisley, counsel for defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND [2014] NZEmpC 182 ARC 21/14 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority of an application to strike
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI CRI [2015] NZHC 1127 TAFFY TE WHIWHI MIHINUI TRACY-LEE ENOKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2015-463-000028 CRI-2015-463-000027 [2015] NZHC 1127 TAFFY TE WHIWHI MIHINUI TRACY-LEE ENOKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE Hearing: 18 May 2015 Appearances:
More information