Te Kahika v The King - [2025] NZCA 258

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA801/2023
[2025] NZCA 258

BETWEEN	WILLIAM DESMOND TE KAHIKA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	25 February 2025
Court:	Hinton, Woolford and Edwards JJ
Counsel:	P L Borich KC for Appellant E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	19 June 2025 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against the convictions entered on charges four and five is allowed. The convictions are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted on both charges.
BThe appeal against the convictions entered on charges seven and eight is dismissed.
CThe sentence imposed in the District Court is set aside and substituted with convictions and discharges for charges seven and eight.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Edwards J)

Mr Te Kahika was found guilty of four offences under the Electoral Act 1993 following a jury trial before Judge Davenport KC in the District Court at Auckland. Two of the convictions were for filing false candidate donation returns.[1] The other two were for failing to retain records, documents, and accounts necessary to verify the return of candidate donations and election expenses.[2]
[1]Electoral Act 1993, s 209B(2)(a).
[2]Sections 209C and 205O(1).
Mr Te Kahika was sentenced to 200 hours’ community work and fined $5,000 for each of the convictions for filing false returns.[3] He was fined $2,000 for each conviction for failure to retain records.[4]
[3]R v Te Kahika [2023] NZDC 29331 at [22]–[23].
[4]At [24].
Mr Te Kahika appeals against all four convictions and sentence. The convictions appeal is advanced on the grounds that two of the charges were time‑barred, and one of those charges was also precluded on double jeopardy grounds. He says there was insufficient evidence in respect of one of the charges of failing to retain records, and that inadmissible video evidence prejudiced his trial. The sentence is said to be manifestly excessive.
The Crown acknowledges that the double jeopardy ground of appeal has merit and the appeal from that conviction should be allowed. However, the Crown says the appeal against the other convictions should be dismissed. The Crown acknowledges that the sentence is stern and says that the appeal against sentence must be allowed if the conviction on one or more of the charges is set aside.

Offending

Mr Te Kahika was a co-leader of the Advance New Zealand Party at the time of the 2020 general election. He stood as a candidate in the Te Tai Tokerau electorate.
The charges arise out of two donations (one of $5,000 and the other $10,000) that Mr Te Kahika received from Mr Kelly. The Crown alleged that these donations were for Mr Te Kahika’s electoral campaign. Mr Te Kahika said they were a personal gift.
On 17 February 2021, Mr Te Kahika filed an expenses and donations return under the Electoral Act. The return did not list the donations received by Mr Kelly. Amended returns filed on 25 February 2021, 8 March 2021,…

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.

Continue reading Te Kahika v The King

Details

AGLC: Te Kahika v The King [2025] NZCA 258
Case: [2025] NZCA 258
Decision Date: 19 June 2025 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Desmond Te Kahika appeals against his convictions on four charges under the Electoral Act 1993. The appeal concerns two convictions for filing false candidate donation returns and two convictions for failing to retain records necessary to verify returns of candidate donations and election expenses. The Crown acknowledges that one of the convictions for filing a false return is precluded on double jeopardy grounds and that the sentence should be reconsidered if any conviction is set aside. The Court of Appeal is asked to determine whether the convictions are legally sound, whether the evidence was sufficient, and whether the sentence is appropriate. The Court must also consider whether the admission of a video recording was prejudicial to the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The Court holds that the conviction on charge four, relating to a return dated 25 February 2021, is time-barred and therefore a nullity. The Court rejects the Crown's argument that the original charge should be interpreted as encompassing all four returns filed. The Court finds that the charge was not sufficiently particularised to inform the appellant of the offence he was charged with and that the subsequent amendments support the interpretation that the charge only related to the first return. The Court also holds that the conviction on charge five, relating to a return dated 8 March 2021, is precluded on double jeopardy grounds because the appellant had already been acquitted of an identical charge. The Court dismisses the appeal against the convictions on charges seven and eight, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for failing to retain records. The Court also finds that the admission of a video recording of an interview with the appellant was not prejudicial to his right to a fair trial.

The Court sets aside the convictions on charges four and five and acquits the appellant on those charges. The Court dismisses the appeal against the convictions on charges seven and eight. The Court substitutes the sentence imposed in the District Court with convictions and discharges for charges seven and eight, considering the low gravity of the offending and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders