B (SC 79/2025) v The King - [2025] NZSC 170

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 79/2025
[2025] NZSC 170

BETWEEN	B (SC 79/2025) Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	J E L Carruthers for Applicant M H Cooke and I A A Mara for Respondent
Judgment:	25 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, B, was convicted by a jury on 18 charges of sexual offending against his daughter, C, between 2001 and 2011, when C was aged between 8 and 17 years. He was also found guilty of supplying methamphetamine and cannabis to C. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years.[1] His appeals against conviction and sentence failed.[2]
[1]R v [B] [2024] NZDC 12002 (Judge Yelavich).
[2]B (CA 417/2024) v R [2025] NZCA 285 (Katz, Brewer and Gault JJ) [CA judgment].
B seeks leave to appeal to this Court, contending:
(a)the trial Judge failed to give an identification warning under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006, due to confusion C at times had in distinguishing B from his double-cousin, F—said to be very similar in appearance, with C admitting that at times she could not tell them apart (Ground 1);
(b)the Judge likewise failed to give a reliability warning in respect of C’s evidence given her self-described mental health issues and prior false allegations against F and other family members (Ground 2); and
(c)as to sentence, the 10 per cent discount given to B for his ill health was inadequate (B has a debilitating condition causing incontinence and confinement to a wheelchair, and is unable to access medicinal cannabis to treat it in prison) (Ground 3).
B also seeks to adduce further affidavit evidence in support of Ground 3.

Our assessment

We do not consider the criteria for leave to appeal are made out.[3] No matter of general or public importance is raised by this application, which turns on the application of well-established principles to the facts of the case.[4] Nor do we find a substantial miscarriage of justice may occur unless the proposed appeal is heard.[5]
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74.
[4]Section 74(2)(a).
[5]Section 74(2)(b).
Ground 1 lacks substance. As the Court of Appeal found, the complainant’s occasional difficulty distinguishing F arose in non-sexual family contexts, whereas B was her father and the offending for which he was convicted was alleged to have occurred over a period of ten years (F having lived in the house for only some months).[6] In addition, propensity evidence supported C’s claim that the offender was B, not F, and the Judge gave detailed directions about the need to be sure about B being the offender. While s 126 of the Evidence Act was engaged here (as the Court of Appeal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read B (SC 79/2025) v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZSC 170
Decision Date: 25 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

B, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence in relation to 18 charges of sexual offending against his daughter, C, as well as charges of supplying methamphetamine and cannabis to C. B was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum of seven years. The applicant's appeals against conviction and sentence were previously dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court considered whether the application met the criteria for leave to appeal under the Senior Courts Act 2016.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the trial Judge failed to give an identification warning under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006, and a reliability warning in respect of C’s evidence given her mental health issues and prior false allegations. The Court also considered whether the 10 per cent discount given to B for his ill health was inadequate.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the application did not raise any matters of general or public importance, and there was no substantial miscarriage of justice that may occur unless the proposed appeal was heard. The Court found that the trial Judge had adequately addressed the issues of identification and reliability, and that the discount given for B's ill health was within range. The Court also noted that any response to a decline in B’s condition should occur via administrative processes, rather than a revision of sentence.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders