| 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) |
| AND | THE KING |
| 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 |
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] |
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
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].
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.
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.…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NZSC 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.