scholarly journals Responsible publication of criminal accusations in New Zealand – the case for change

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
William Steel
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Conduct ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p>In 2000, a full Court of Appeal in Vickery v McLean excluded all generally published allegations of criminal conduct from the protection of Lange qualified privilege. Highlighting difficulties with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, this paper argues that New Zealand’s current approach represents an unjustifiable limitation on the right to freedom of expression and is out of line with comparable jurisdictions. It suggests that adopting the principle from the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd, within the existing Lange framework, strikes a more appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the right to reputation. Doing so would allow Lange privilege to protect unproven, but verified, allegations of criminal impropriety whilst adequately safeguarding reputations and guarding against fears of trial by media.</p>

scholarly journals Responsible publication of criminal accusations in New Zealand – the case for change

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
William Steel
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Conduct ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p>In 2000, a full Court of Appeal in Vickery v McLean excluded all generally published allegations of criminal conduct from the protection of Lange qualified privilege. Highlighting difficulties with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, this paper argues that New Zealand’s current approach represents an unjustifiable limitation on the right to freedom of expression and is out of line with comparable jurisdictions. It suggests that adopting the principle from the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd, within the existing Lange framework, strikes a more appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the right to reputation. Doing so would allow Lange privilege to protect unproven, but verified, allegations of criminal impropriety whilst adequately safeguarding reputations and guarding against fears of trial by media.</p>

scholarly journals The Contractual Interpretation of Tipping J

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
Matthew Barber
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The Future ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Way

In the Supreme Court decision of Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd, Tipping J put forward an approach to contact interpretation that, while indebted to that of Lord Hoffmann, was expressed differently and promoted the use of evidence of prior negotiations. Despite not gaining the support of any of the other sitting judges, this approach was swiftly taken up in the lower courts and, until recently at least, seems to have been accepted as representing New Zealand law. This article attempts a comprehensive examination of Tipping J’s approach. It concludes that, while coherent in principle, the detail of the approach is flawed in a number of ways, especially the way in which evidence of subsequent conduct is assumed to work. The future of Tipping J’s approach is considered.

scholarly journals Third Party Consent Searches Following the Search and Surveillance Act

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 447
Author(s):  
Sam McMullan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Living Arrangements ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

Many New Zealanders live in shared living arrangements. The result of this is that reasonable expectations of privacy are becoming more limited. State officials may conduct a lawful search where a person consents to such a search if that person has the authority to consent. Where people live in shared living arrangements, several people may have authority to consent to a search of the same property. This article explores the extent of a third party's power to consent to property searches where more than one person has authority to consent to a search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. It argues that the question of reasonable expectations of privacy should not be assessed by reference to property rights. It also considers the concept of "apparent" authority which has arisen in New Zealand from the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Bradley as well as the concept of a present and objecting occupant which has arisen in the United States in the Supreme Court decision of Georgia v Randolph.

scholarly journals Expert Evidence, “Naked Statistics” and Standards of Proof

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Ward
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Epidemiological Evidence ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Categorical Belief

In the context of the UK Supreme Court decision in Sienkiewicz v Greif (2011) this article discusses the question whether so-called “naked statistical evidence” can satisfy the civil standard of proof in English law, the “balance of probabilities”. It argues that what is required to satisfy the standard is a judicial belief that causation is more likely than not, rather than a categorical belief that causation occurred. Whether such a belief is justified depends on the weight of the evidence as well as the degree of probability it purports to establish, but there is no reason of principle why epidemiological evidence alone should not satisfy this standard.

Equity & Trusts Law Directions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Watt
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Farming Families ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This book explains the key topics covered on equity and trusts courses. The content of the text is designed to emphasise the relationship between equity, trusts, property, contract and restitution to enable students to map out conceptual connections between related legal ideas. There is also a focus on modern cases in the commercial sphere to reflect the constantly changing and socially significant role of trusts and equity. The book starts by introducing equity and trusts. It then includes a chapter on understanding trusts, and moves on to consider capacity and formality requirements, certainty requirements and the constitution of trusts. Various types of trusts are then examined such as purpose, charitable, and variation trusts. The book then describes issues related to trusteeship. Breach of trust is explained, as is informal trusts of land. There is a chapter on tracing, and then the book concludes by looking at equitable liability of strangers to trust and equitable doctrines and remedies. This new edition includes coverage of significant recent cases, including the Supreme Court decision on interest to be paid by tax authorities on monies owed; the Supreme Court decision on the test of dishonesty applicable to civil matters; the Privy Council decision on the division of investment property acquired by cohabitants; the Court of Appeal decisions on Quistclose trusts; fiduciary duties in arms-length contracts; transactions prejudicing creditors; beneficiary anonymity in variation of trust cases; exemption clauses; discretion exercised beyond trustee’s authority; implications of GDPR for trustee disclosures; trustee personal liability; causation and equitable compensation; statutory relief for a professional trustee’s breach of trust; use of proprietary estoppel to reward work undertaken in farming families; costs of seeking court’s directions; injunctions ordered against persons unknown; equitable jurisdiction to rectify agreements.

Lawyers in Juvenile Court

1967 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 488-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spencer Coxe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Institutional Population

The article delineates the effect of Gault on the "right to counsel" in the juvenile court. It reviews the background of the Supreme Court decision and analyzes the controversy over the lawyer's role in adjudication and disposition and it discusses some of the effects of the ruling on institutional population and the backlog of cases awaiting disposition.

scholarly journals Unrewarded donors: The search for victims in the wake of Kapa

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ayla Saroz
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Offending ◽  
Definition Of

<p>This paper provides a critical analysis of the sentence of reparation in New Zealand, as set out by s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The scope of the sentence is examined with particular regard to the recent Supreme Court decision, which limited reparation so that only victims of offences can benefit from the sentence. The definition of “victim”, as determined by the Sentencing Act, is confined to direct victims of criminal offending. Thus, any indirect victim suffering harm or loss from criminal offending cannot benefit from reparation. This paper questions whether that limitation gives reparation an appropriate scope, or whether some extension should be made so that the sentence is not restricted in its application to only benefit direct victims. In so doing, this paper argues that the criminal law is the suitable domain to address such issues of compensation and therefore, an extension of the reparation sentence is required. Alternative ways of limiting reparation to address this compensation issue are outlined. Ultimately it is proposed that an additional provision should be included within the definition of “victim”, for the purpose of s 32, so that indirect victims can also benefit from a sentence of reparation.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document