High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the Judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances (PDF, 211 KB). If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 1505
Date of Judgment
10 June 2025
Summary
Life sentence with MPI of 1O years' imprisonment for murder.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 1480
Date of Judgment
05 June 2025
Summary
Defendant sentenced for murder of his 78-year-old mother to life imprisonment together with 15 years minimum period of imprisonment (MPI).
Held: Provocation did not mitigate against life imprisonment despite a conflicted relationship and belittling comments by his mother at the time of the offending (s 102). Circumstances of vulnerability and callousness were present to a high level engaging s 104(1)(e) and (g) of the Sentencing Act 2002. Discount of two years to notional MPI of 17 years for the early guilty plea reflecting remorse, as otherwise the sentence would be manifestly unjust.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 1431
Date of Judgment
30 May 2025
Summary
Sentencing of Jayden Cook for murder. Mr Cook had been drinking with some of his associates at the Māngere Town Centre Bus Station. He became highly intoxicated and fell asleep. When he woke up, he was highly agitated and became violent. First, he seriously assaulted one of his associates who was left unconscious. Second, he seriously assaulted the murder victim. This assault included several full force punches to the head as well as stomping on the head and body of the victim once he had been knocked to the ground. This victim later died in hospital from his injuries. Third, he assaulted his brother who had also been drinking with him.
Life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10-and-a-half years imposed. Life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust in the circumstances. The offending did not reach the threshold whereby life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years was necessary. Having regard to similar cases, an 11-year minimum period was an appropriate starting point for the murder. It was appropriate to increase that by two years for Mr Cook's two other convictions being causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and assault with intent to injure. A one-year reduction in the minimum period was warranted for Mr Cook's guilty plea and a further 18 months' reduction was appropriate for Mr Cook's personal circumstances. Reductions for youth and remorse declined.
Life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10-and-a-half years imposed. Life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust in the circumstances. The offending did not reach the threshold whereby life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years was necessary. Having regard to similar cases, an 11-year minimum period was an appropriate starting point for the murder. It was appropriate to increase that by two years for Mr Cook's two other convictions being causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and assault with intent to injure. A one-year reduction in the minimum period was warranted for Mr Cook's guilty plea and a further 18 months' reduction was appropriate for Mr Cook's personal circumstances. Reductions for youth and remorse declined.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 1162
Date of Judgment
13 May 2025
Summary
Defendant sentenced for manslaughter. Defendant aged 12 at the time of the offending and previously assessed as suffering from a mental impairment due to childhood abuse. Starting point of five and a half years’ adopted. Reduction of 25 per cent for guilty plea; 30 per cent for youth, good prospects of rehabilitation and reduced culpability given childhood experiences; and 5 per cent for time spent on bail. End sentence of 12 months home detention.
Case number
[2025] NZHC 1012
Date of Judgment
01 May 2025
Summary
Plaintiff company seeking to have its name entered on the first defendant's share register, because of its payments under share subscription and transfer agreements respectively with the first defendant and two of its shareholders, the fifth and sixth defendants. And it sought compensation in a proportionate amount of dividends subsequently paid to shareholders, plus interest. Alternatively it sought damages for the defendant's breach of the agreements. It also sought damages on the ground its investment was obtained by misleading and deceptive conduct by the first defendant. It also sought transfer of some 113 bitcoin worth of cryptocurrency tokens issued by the fourth defendant company (related to the first) under a contended contract collateral to its investment in the first.
Held: The plaintiff company's name had been wrongly omitted from the first defendant's share register. Rectification of the share register ordered accordingly. Because compensation for dividends paid to shareholders only claimed against the first defendant, compensation or dividends received by the fifth and sixth defendants could not be awarded. However compensation could be awarded in respect of he shares under the subscription agreement, with interest. All other claims dismissed: the investment was not obtained by the conduct alleged, and there was no agreement as to the transfer of 113 bitcoin worth of tokens.
Held: The plaintiff company's name had been wrongly omitted from the first defendant's share register. Rectification of the share register ordered accordingly. Because compensation for dividends paid to shareholders only claimed against the first defendant, compensation or dividends received by the fifth and sixth defendants could not be awarded. However compensation could be awarded in respect of he shares under the subscription agreement, with interest. All other claims dismissed: the investment was not obtained by the conduct alleged, and there was no agreement as to the transfer of 113 bitcoin worth of tokens.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 1022
Date of Judgment
30 April 2025
Summary
Sentencing for felony murder; defendant and three others involved in plan to rob victim; victim was lured to the primary offender's; defendant rendered victim unconscious but not present when weapon introduced or fatal blows administered; defendant and one codefendant transported victim and dropped him at car park with severe injuries while other two co-defendants cleaned up the scene of assault; defendant and two co-defendants then drove to victim's address and burgled his house; victim was vulnerable due to age and being heavily outnumbered; the robbery was premeditated; defendant pleaded guilty before re-trial commenced, following form of sentence indication confirming life imprisonment would not be imposed; defendant aged 20 at time of offending.
HELD: life sentence would be manifestly unjust due to defendant's youth at the time of offending, his low cognitive functioning and developmental, medical and behavioural issues at the time of offending, as well as his limited role in the felony murder, influence exerted on him by primary defendant, and lack of knowledge that a weapon was present; finite sentence appropriate; starting point of 24 years' imprisonment adopted; 20 per cent deduction for youth and rehabilitative prospects; 15 per cent deduction for guilty plea; 15 per cent deduction for personal factors and mental health; one year deduction for time spent on EM bail; end sentence of 11 years' imprisonment with MPI of six years' imprisonment.
HELD: life sentence would be manifestly unjust due to defendant's youth at the time of offending, his low cognitive functioning and developmental, medical and behavioural issues at the time of offending, as well as his limited role in the felony murder, influence exerted on him by primary defendant, and lack of knowledge that a weapon was present; finite sentence appropriate; starting point of 24 years' imprisonment adopted; 20 per cent deduction for youth and rehabilitative prospects; 15 per cent deduction for guilty plea; 15 per cent deduction for personal factors and mental health; one year deduction for time spent on EM bail; end sentence of 11 years' imprisonment with MPI of six years' imprisonment.
Case number
[2025] NZHC 987
Date of Judgment
29 April 2025
Summary
See media release
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 987 (PDF, 119 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 885
Date of Judgment
14 April 2025
Summary
Application for interim relief under s 15 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 declined. Held: applicant could not show it had a position that was necessary to preserve when the granting of interim relief would have involved preventing the Minister from implementing a broad public policy setting. Discretionary factors more broadly also weighed against the granting of interim relief.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 892
Date of Judgment
11 April 2025
Summary
Jimmy Heremaia sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years.
Held: The subsequent burning of Ms Rigby's body was an aggravating factor justifying an uplift to the minimum period of imprisonment.
Sentence of 12 months' home detention imposed on Ropine Paul, who was a party to arson.
Held: The subsequent burning of Ms Rigby's body was an aggravating factor justifying an uplift to the minimum period of imprisonment.
Sentence of 12 months' home detention imposed on Ropine Paul, who was a party to arson.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 854
Date of Judgment
10 April 2025
Summary
Sentencing for murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Dariush Talagi murdered Sione Tuuholoaki and wounded Jarome Alexander following a chance encounter between two groups and related violence on Queen Street. Life imprisonment imposed with a minimum period of 12 years.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 850
Date of Judgment
09 April 2025
Summary
Sentencing of eight defendants on various charges associated with the death of Mitchell Te Kani. Five defendants sentenced for manslaughter with uplifts for associated violence charges; two defendants sentenced for violence only, excluding the manslaughter; and one defendant sentenced on two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
On the night of the offending, Bodine Umuroa and Kiri Pini had gone to the address of a suburban family home and had a confrontation with the occupants. The occupants had no connection or involvement with any gang. Ms Pini had been in a previous relationship with one of the occupants. In response, they went back to a local gathering of Mongrel Mob members where Mr Umuroa sounded a "call to arms". Almost immediately, roughly 20 members of the Mongrel Mob left the gathering in five vehicles and returned to the address. Some carried weapons. Upon arriving at the address, the group advanced up the driveway of the address towards the dwellings. The male occupants had formed a skirmish line and had armed themselves in a bid to protect themselves and their property. The Mongrel Mob pack then began assaulting the occupants. During the attack, Mr Korau Te Kani was hit across the forehead with a weapon leaving him with a significant wound down to the bone and Mr Isaiah Hewitt had been seriously wounded with lacerations to his skull. These led to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm charges. There were additional, more minor, assault charges for violence to the other occupants. Tragically, Mitchell Te Kani was killed in the attack when he was struck with an object to the head.
The defendants found guilty of the manslaughter and/or the violence were found guilty as parties under s 66(2) of the Crimes Act. No principal offender was identified. Therefore, the sentencing for those charges proceeded on a collective liability basis without much adjustment for specific roles played. That was appropriate in this case because by virtue of the verdicts all of the defendants found guilty on those charges had signed up to the common unlawful purpose of entering the property to assault, including with the use of weapons, one or more occupants of the property. Deterrence and protection of the community was paramount for such gratuitous, wanton violence.
Starting points between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment were adopted for the manslaughter. A 10-year starting point was also adopted for the four violence charges combined. For those guilty of manslaughter, their starting points were uplifted by three years to reflect this. For those guilty of the violence alone, this became their starting point. Various other uplifts were given to other charges faced including by Mr Umuroa and Ms Pini arising from the confrontation earlier in the evening.
For Mr Shem Williams, a three-year starting point was adopted for the two perverting the course of justice charges he faced.
Appropriate reductions were then made for each individuals personal mitigating factors and sentence was passed.
For each defendant other than Mr Williams, a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent was imposed. In the circumstances, for such serious and shocking violence, that was necessary because the usual non-parole period was insufficient to meet the purposes specified in s 86 of the Sentencing Act.
On the night of the offending, Bodine Umuroa and Kiri Pini had gone to the address of a suburban family home and had a confrontation with the occupants. The occupants had no connection or involvement with any gang. Ms Pini had been in a previous relationship with one of the occupants. In response, they went back to a local gathering of Mongrel Mob members where Mr Umuroa sounded a "call to arms". Almost immediately, roughly 20 members of the Mongrel Mob left the gathering in five vehicles and returned to the address. Some carried weapons. Upon arriving at the address, the group advanced up the driveway of the address towards the dwellings. The male occupants had formed a skirmish line and had armed themselves in a bid to protect themselves and their property. The Mongrel Mob pack then began assaulting the occupants. During the attack, Mr Korau Te Kani was hit across the forehead with a weapon leaving him with a significant wound down to the bone and Mr Isaiah Hewitt had been seriously wounded with lacerations to his skull. These led to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm charges. There were additional, more minor, assault charges for violence to the other occupants. Tragically, Mitchell Te Kani was killed in the attack when he was struck with an object to the head.
The defendants found guilty of the manslaughter and/or the violence were found guilty as parties under s 66(2) of the Crimes Act. No principal offender was identified. Therefore, the sentencing for those charges proceeded on a collective liability basis without much adjustment for specific roles played. That was appropriate in this case because by virtue of the verdicts all of the defendants found guilty on those charges had signed up to the common unlawful purpose of entering the property to assault, including with the use of weapons, one or more occupants of the property. Deterrence and protection of the community was paramount for such gratuitous, wanton violence.
Starting points between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment were adopted for the manslaughter. A 10-year starting point was also adopted for the four violence charges combined. For those guilty of manslaughter, their starting points were uplifted by three years to reflect this. For those guilty of the violence alone, this became their starting point. Various other uplifts were given to other charges faced including by Mr Umuroa and Ms Pini arising from the confrontation earlier in the evening.
For Mr Shem Williams, a three-year starting point was adopted for the two perverting the course of justice charges he faced.
Appropriate reductions were then made for each individuals personal mitigating factors and sentence was passed.
For each defendant other than Mr Williams, a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent was imposed. In the circumstances, for such serious and shocking violence, that was necessary because the usual non-parole period was insufficient to meet the purposes specified in s 86 of the Sentencing Act.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 751
Date of Judgment
01 April 2025
Summary
Sentencing for murder and attempted murder under ss 172 and 173 of the Crimes Act 1961. On the charge of murder, the Court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 13 years and three months. On the charge of attempted murder, the Court sentenced the defendant to a concurrent sentence of five years' and ten months' imprisonment.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 732
Date of Judgment
01 April 2025
Summary
Appeal against decision of the District Court refusing to award costs against the prosecution under s 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The application was made in relation to two procedural errors made by the police prosecutors in the course of a prosecution. The errors were failing to disclose a relevant video to the defence, and failing to engage in case management discussions and complete case management memoranda. Held: The appeal is dismissed. The District Court Judge was correct to find that both procedural errors were not "significant" as to attract a costs award under s 364.
However, the Judge noted and addressed wider issues that emerged from the appeal regarding the operation and effectiveness of the current case management procedures introduced in 2011. It seemed, at least from the information in this case, that the procedures were sometimes not being engaged with resulting in longer rather than shorter periods of resolving criminal cases in the District Court.
However, the Judge noted and addressed wider issues that emerged from the appeal regarding the operation and effectiveness of the current case management procedures introduced in 2011. It seemed, at least from the information in this case, that the procedures were sometimes not being engaged with resulting in longer rather than shorter periods of resolving criminal cases in the District Court.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 708
Date of Judgment
31 March 2025
Summary
Mr Brown was convicted in the District Court on a charge of wearing prohibited gang insignia in a public place under s 7 of the Gangs Act 2024. He was captured on Council CCTV cameras wearing a cap which displayed gang wording in gang colours. An appeal against the refusal to grant a discharge without conviction was dismissed. The High Court noted that the particular offending was classified at the lowest level, there being no intimidatory behaviour or other aggravating factors, nor was there any complaint from members of the public. Nevertheless, the culpability was not “zero” and Mr Brown had pleaded guilty to the relevant charge. The District Court Judge was correct to find that the consequences for Mr Brown of a conviction for the offence were not out of all proportion to the offending, according to the test for a discharge without conviction. The application of that test is not affected by the issue of whether the offence provision is consistent with the right to freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as argued by Mr Brown.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 657
Date of Judgment
27 March 2025
Summary
High Court declared Crown was in breach of its obligations under the 1992 fisheries settlement. Māori received fishing quota as part of 1992 settlement. The breach arose from Crown's failure to offset losses caused by the mandatory confiscation of settlement quota under s 23 Fisheries Act 1996. High Court found Crown and Māori intended transfers of settlement quota would be permanent and not subject to reappropriation without compensation. Obligations under settlement have ongoing legal force. Crown's affirmative defences rejected.
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 657 (PDF, 151 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 651
Date of Judgment
27 March 2025
Summary
Sentencing for importation, possession, and supply of methamphetamine; and participating in an organised criminal group. Importation of almost 200 kilograms of methamphetamine to New Zealand and other drug offending, all while the defendant was serving a sentence for like offending. Guilty plea and defendant's age overwhelmed by aggravating factors. Life imprisonment required in the circumstances of the case.
Case name
Case number
[2025] NZHC 609
Date of Judgment
21 March 2025
Summary
The High Court concluded the rainbow crossing at the junction of Dixon Street and Cuba Mall was lawful in 2018 and is not contrary to the rules governing road markings and traffic control devices. McHerron J assessed the crossing primarily by reference to the rule in place at installation, rather than when amended, as there was no suggestion the amendments were designed to be retrospective.
Media Release
- MR [2025] NZHC 609 (PDF, 146 KB)