H (SC 1/2024) v The King

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANT.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 1/2024
 [2025] NZSC 62
BETWEEN

H (SC 1/2024)
Appellant

AND

THE KING
Respondent

Hearing:

19 August 2024

Court:

Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ

Counsel:

R M Mansfield KC and J E L Carruthers for Appellant
Z R Johnston and H G Clark for Respondent

Judgment:

10 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against conviction is allowed and a discharge without conviction is substituted.

BWe make an order prohibiting publication of the name, address, occupation and identifying particulars of the appellant.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
(Given by Kós J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Background [2]
Sentencing in High Court [6]
Court of Appeal [11]
Conviction appeal: issues [14]
Statutory framework [16]
  Transfer from or back to the Youth Court [20]
  Determination of charges and sentencing [24]
Issue 1: Should H have been transferred back to the Youth Court?
[26]
  Discussion [28]
Issue 2: Does the entry of a conviction against H in the High Court constitute a miscarriage of justice?
[38]
  How would the remaining charge have been dealt with
  if it had been transferred back to the Youth Court?

[40]
  Does the difference in outcome constitute a miscarriage
  of justice?

[43]
Name suppression appeal [44]
Result [48]
Appendix: Section 283 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 [50]
  1. At issue in this appeal is how H, a young person—transferred out of the Youth Court to the High Court because of a more serious charge on which he was then acquitted—should be dealt with on a remaining charge that could always have been disposed of in the Youth Court.

Background

  1. H and T were members of a group of young people involved in a fight with another such group in downtown Whangārei on the night of 12 June 2021.  H was then 17 years old; T was 20.  The sentencing Judge, Brewer J, described it as “a moving fight with multiple confrontations between different members of the groups”.[1]  The ‍whole swirling affray was captured on high-definition CCTV.  Towards the end of it, T stabbed another participant, Mr Peihopa, who fell to the ground.  H then ran in and kicked Mr Peihopa once in the upper torso, before fleeing the scene. 

    [1]R v [T] [2023] NZHC 630 [Sentencing notes] at [9].

  2. The Judge found the evidence did not establish H knew that Mr Peihopa had been stabbed.[2]  Nor was any injury identified as resulting from H’s kick.  The stab wound administered by T however proved fatal, resulting in T being charged with murder.

    [2]At [17]. T’s confrontation with Mr Peihopa lasted only three seconds by the Judge’s assessment.

  1. H was charged in the Youth Court with injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.  In that Court he was entitled automatically to name suppression.[3]  Some months later he was also charged as a party to the murder of Mr Peihopa.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read H (SC 1/2024) 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 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered the case of H (SC 1/2024) v The King, involving H, a young person who was involved in a fight in Whangārei and subsequently charged with injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and being a party to the murder of another participant, Mr Peihopa. H was acquitted of the murder charge but pleaded guilty to the injuring charge in the High Court. The case raised issues concerning the transfer of charges between the Youth Court and the High Court, the applicability of youth justice principles, and the consequences of entering a conviction against a young person. The appeal against conviction was allowed, and a discharge without conviction was substituted. Additionally, the Court made an order prohibiting the publication of H's name, address, occupation, and identifying particulars.

The primary legal issue was whether H should have been transferred back to the Youth Court for the remaining injuring charge after his acquittal on the more serious charge of being a party to murder. The Court found that the statutory framework under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 required the High Court to transfer the remaining charge back to the Youth Court unless the interests of justice required retention in the High Court. The Court concluded that the interests of justice did not require retention, and the charge should have been transferred back to the Youth Court. Consequently, the entry of a conviction against H in the High Court constituted a miscarriage of justice, and the conviction was set aside. The Court also addressed the name suppression appeal, finding that H must be given permanent name suppression as if his charge had been disposed of in the Youth Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.