Cantwell v Police - [2025] NZSC 118

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 26/2025
[2025] NZSC 118

BETWEEN	AMBER JADE CANTWELL Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J A A Mara for Respondent
Judgment:	15 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

On 23 May 2024, the applicant, Amber Jade Cantwell, was convicted of assault and intentional damage (but acquitted of theft).[1] On 13 December 2024, her conviction appeal was dismissed by the High Court.[2] She now seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the High Court decision. A direct appeal from the High Court to this Court will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.[3]

The offending

[1]New Zealand Police v Cantwell [2024] NZDC 17939 (Judge Thomas).

[2]Cantwell v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHC 3827 (Johnstone J) [HC judgment].

[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75(b). It must also be necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear and determine the appeal: ss 74 and 75(a).

In April 2023, Ms Cantwell spent the evening at Mr Smith’s house. Ms Cantwell left but returned shortly afterwards and mistakenly took Mr Smith’s phone out to her car. When Mr Smith followed her, she struck him twice on the head. When Mr Smith went inside to call the police, Ms Cantwell threw a plant pot through a glass pane in Mr Smith’s front door.

Extension of time to apply for leave

Ms Cantwell’s application was out of time. It should have been filed by 16 January 2025.[4] The High Court judgment was delivered on 13 December 2024, and her application for leave to appeal was dated 18 March 2025. Ms Cantwell is self-‍represented and says that she is homeless and has been having email issues.
[4]See Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 239(2).
Ms Cantwell has provided some explanation for not filing on time. As there is no prejudice to the Crown and the period of delay was not great, we grant her application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

Grounds of application for leave

In her notice of appeal Ms Cantwell says that the High Court did not review the evidence before deciding on the appeal and that she was not given adequate disclosure. It appears she also maintains that the District Court and High Court erred in their findings.[5]
[5]Ms Cantwell was given multiple extensions of time to file her submissions in support of her application. This Court, in a minute dated 6 August 2025, gave Ms Cantwell one final extension and said that the application would be decided on the material before the Court as at 27 August 2025 if her submissions were not filed by 13 August 2025. She failed to meet this deadline.
The Crown submits that there are no exceptional…

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 Cantwell v Police 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 118
Decision Date: 15 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cantwell v Police, the applicant, Amber Jade Cantwell, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against her conviction for assault and intentional damage. The High Court had previously dismissed her appeal, and she now seeks to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, a process that only occurs in exceptional circumstances. The application was filed beyond the allowed time, and the Court was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time to file the application and whether to grant leave to appeal. The Supreme Court found that while there was some justification for the late filing due to the applicant’s circumstances, there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the High Court had adequately reviewed the evidence and that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The key legal issue before the Court was whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted, considering the strict criteria for such appeals. The Court had to balance the applicant’s circumstances against the principles governing direct appeals to the Supreme Court, which require exceptional circumstances. The applicant argued that the High Court failed to review the evidence properly and that she was inadequately disclosed, but the Court found that the High Court had indeed reviewed the evidence thoroughly and that the applicant had full access to the Court file. The Court also noted that there were no significant errors in the findings of the District Court and High Court that would warrant an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court found that the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted due to the applicant’s challenging circumstances, including homelessness and email issues, and because there was no prejudice to the Crown. However, the Court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the High Court had appropriately reviewed the evidence and that the applicant had not demonstrated a risk of a miscarriage of justice or raised matters of general or public importance. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Court granted the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal but dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court’s decision emphasised the stringent criteria for direct appeals to the Supreme Court and the need for exceptional circumstances.

Orders