The Petal — New Zealand Edition: 12–14 June 2026

A New Zealand current-awareness special, covering the Supreme Court and High Court for 12–14 June 2026 — twenty-six decisions reported, eight aired. The Supreme Court rewrites how counter-intuitive evidence may be run in sexual cases (educative only, never diagnostic, with a mandatory jury direction) and resets sentencing for "aged-out" offenders around a notional Youth Court outcome. The High Court holds that gang-insignia forfeiture is absolute on conviction but Crown-supervised — no patch destroyed without a court order — and marks the Bill of Rights threshold for property forfeiture. Plus the first markets-regulator penalty template for financial-reporting failures, when a company may appear other than by counsel, and orders for a non-appealing respondent. Produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE, from The Petal. An all–New Zealand AI voice cast. Nothing in this program is legal advice. Two conviction appeals were sent back for retrial — appellants identified only by initials under court order; the presumption of innocence applies.

In this episode:

MB v The King [2026] NZSC 76 — counter-intuitive evidence is educative only and may never be used diagnostically; a mandatory direction is required (unanimous). https://jade.io/article/1232825

TW v The King [2026] NZSC 77 — the companion appeal; a direction treating absence of contemporaneous complaint as irrelevant breaches the right to present a defence (3:2). https://jade.io/article/1232826

F (SC 98/2025) v The King [2026] NZSC 78 — the inverted sentencing method for "aged-out" offenders, built on a notional Youth Court outcome. https://jade.io/article/1232827

Solicitor-General v Leef [2026] NZHC 1628 — Gangs Act forfeiture of insignia is absolute on conviction but the Crown cannot destroy a patch without a court direction; s 9 NZBORA threshold not reached. https://jade.io/article/1232821

Financial Markets Authority v Qex Logistics Ltd [2026] NZHC 1049 — the penalty template for financial-reporting failures: maximum, mandatory-factor starting point, deterrence-preserving discount. https://jade.io/article/1232804

NZ Premium Trading Co Ltd v Affco NZ Ltd [2026] NZSC 80 — a company may appear other than by counsel only in a deserving case; impecuniosity alone is not enough (Mannix restated). https://jade.io/article/1232828

Tomar v Khatri [2026] NZSC 75 — an appeal court may make orders for a non-appealing respondent where the point flows inevitably from the appeal. https://jade.io/article/1232823

— CASE NOTES —

MB v The King [2026] NZSC 76

Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Kós, Miller and Cooke JJ · 11 June 2026

Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232825

Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Criminal Law — Conviction Appeal (counter-intuitive evidence).

Held (appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered; unanimous): Counter-intuitive evidence is educative only — it corrects general misconceptions about how sexual-abuse victims behave and says nothing about the particular complainant; it may never be used diagnostically or linked to the complainant's account. The judge must give the mandatory direction prohibiting diagnostic reasoning, not leave it to the prosecutor or an agreed statement. Misuse plus the missing direction created a real risk to a credibility-dependent verdict.

Why aired: With TW, the new governing framework for counter-intuitive evidence — it changes prosecutorial conduct, agreed statements and mandatory directions in every such trial.

Caution: Appellant pseudonymised by court order; convictions quashed and retrial ordered — the presumption of innocence applies. Survivor-sensitive register: principle and consequence only.

TW v The King [2026] NZSC 77

Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Kós, Miller and Cooke JJ · 11 June 2026

Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232826

Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Criminal Law — Conviction Appeal (right to present a defence).

Held (appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered; Ellen France and Kós JJ dissenting — 3:2): Heard with MB. The agreed statement was probabilistic; the prosecutor linked the evidence to the complainant's delayed complaint; and the judge omitted the mandatory direction and linked the evidence to the facts. The combined effect conveyed that delay was irrelevant, impermissibly limiting the right to present a defence under s 25(e) of the Bill of Rights. Dissent: the agreed-statement challenge was raised first on appeal and the departures were not material.

Why aired: The right-to-present-a-defence holding — directions that treat absence of contemporaneous complaint as irrelevant now breach s 25(e).

Caution: Appellant pseudonymised; identifying particulars suppressed until final disposition; presumption of innocence applies. Survivor-sensitive register observed.

F (SC 98/2025) v The King [2026] NZSC 78

Ellen France, Williams, Kós, Miller and Cooke JJ · 11 June 2026

Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232827

Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Sentencing — Sentence Appeal (aged-out offenders).

Held (appeals allowed; remitted for resentencing): Where an aged-out offender — serious offending as a young person, charged as an adult — is sentenced without considering the likely Oranga Tamariki Act disposition, the sentence is in error. The notional Youth Court outcome becomes the end point of the analysis, then tested by a second evaluative stage. A "community-based sentence" bears a broad meaning — from discharge without conviction up to maximum home detention. The method is not a guideline judgment and applies on its own terms, including on reopening.

Why aired: Confirms and applies the inverted sentencing methodology for aged-out offenders.

Caution: Appellants anonymised; one remained in custody pending resentencing.

Solicitor-General v Leef [2026] NZHC 1628

Becroft J · 11 June 2026

Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232821

Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Criminal Law / Bill of Rights — forfeiture; disproportionately severe punishment.

Held (appeal allowed): Gangs Act 2024 forfeiture of insignia on conviction is absolute, and "otherwise disposed of" precludes return to the offender. The very high s 9 NZBORA threshold is not reached: though the patch carries real cultural value, forfeiture with a fine and no imprisonment is not grossly disproportionate. A court direction is always required before destruction or disposal; the Crown has no independent power to destroy a patch, and a disposal direction is a "sentence" appealable by the prosecutor.

Why aired: Gangs Act forfeiture is absolute but Crown-supervised, and marks the s 9 NZBORA threshold for property forfeiture.

Financial Markets Authority v Qex Logistics Ltd [2026] NZHC 1049

Powell J · 23 April 2026

Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232804

Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Commercial Law — Financial Markets Regulation (pecuniary penalty methodology).

Held (orders granted): A declaration of contravention is a precondition to a pecuniary penalty; declarations were made against the company and, by deeming, its sole director for failing to prepare and lodge audited group financial statements over three years. Methodology: fix the maximum; set a starting point on the mandatory factors; then adjust against the Act's objectives. The maxima were $5m and $1m; moderately serious conduct justified 25% starting points; a 30% discount was allowed, but not so large as to remove deterrence. A three-year banning order (deferred to 1 July 2026) and instalments were approved.

Why aired: The penalty template for financial-reporting failures, in a first-of-kind FMA action.

NZ Premium Trading Co Ltd v Affco NZ Ltd [2026] NZSC 80

Ellen France, Williams and Miller JJ · 12 June 2026

Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232828

Signal: Illustrative · 5 stars · Practice and Procedure — Representation; Company Law — Limited Liability.

Held (application dismissed): A company may conduct proceedings only through a lawyer unless the court permits otherwise in a deserving case — part of the price of limited liability, protecting creditors who may not recover costs. Impecuniosity alone does not justify leave, as inability to instruct counsel also entails inability to meet an adverse costs award. Leave was refused given the proposed representative's emotional involvement, the complexity of the appeal and the need for the independence of counsel.

Why aired: Restates the Mannix test at apex level — impecuniosity is not enough.

Tomar v Khatri [2026] NZSC 75

Ellen France, Kós and Cooke JJ · 10 June 2026

Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232823

Signal: Illustrative · 5 stars · Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal; appellate powers.

Held (leave to appeal dismissed): The Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules permit the court to give any judgment that ought to have been given, including in favour of a respondent who has not appealed; where setting aside the High Court order made a vexatious-litigant restraining order an inevitable and fully-canvassed question, it could be determined despite the absence of a cross-appeal. No civil miscarriage arose — the outcome was inevitable and the new order was less rights-intrusive than the indefinite order it replaced.

Why aired: Clarifies the appellate power to make orders for a non-appealing respondent where the point flows inevitably from the appeal.

Also reported: Gray-Gill (companion to Leef), Adams v Alexander, Estate of Ruru v Attorney-General, Warren v Corrections. Full docket and per-decision links at ledger.jade.io.

Produced by BarNet OpenLaw — the creators of 

Transcript

NZ Supreme Court & High Court · all-NZ cast

[00:03] The Host's desk: Kia ora, and welcome to the New Zealand edition of The Petal, covering the twelfth to the fourteenth of June. It's been a big few days at the top of our courts. The Supreme Court has handed down a pair of judgments that rewrite how counter-intuitive evidence is run in sexual cases, and it's reset the sentencing method for offenders who committed serious crimes as teenagers. The High Court has told the Crown it can't simply destroy a forfeited gang patch. And there's a clean lesson on when a company can send its director to argue its own case. Twenty-six decisions reported. Eight made the cut. Every citation is in your podcast notes. We begin at the Criminal Law Desk, and a content note: our lead concerns child sexual abuse trials. We'll keep to the law and its consequences, not the facts.

[00:51] Criminal Law Desk: Thanks. The Supreme Court released two conviction appeals together, and between them they are now the rule book for counter-intuitive evidence. So what is it? It's the expert evidence that tells a jury why a genuine victim might delay complaining, or stay in contact with an abuser. Its job is educative. It clears away a misconception. Here's the line the Court has drawn, and it's the whole story: that evidence can never be used diagnostically. It tells you nothing about whether this complainant is telling the truth. A prosecutor must not stitch it to the complainant's account. A prosecutor must not put it to a defendant in cross-examination to say his conduct matches the profile of an abuser. And the judge must give a mandatory direction. The jury must be told they cannot reason that because the complainant behaved the way the research describes, the abuse must have happened.

[01:42] The Host's desk: And both convictions fell.

[01:46] Criminal Law Desk: Both quashed, both sent back for retrial. In each case the evidence had been used the wrong way, the mandatory direction was missing, and the trials turned on credibility with nothing independent to support it. Worth taping to the bar table: probabilistic language, the "more often than not", the "most likely a family member", raises the risk every time. And the Court has discouraged the old "zero balance" metaphor. Don't tell a jury the evidence restores the complainant to neutral. That links it back to credibility. One of the two was not unanimous. Two Justices would have held the departures weren't material and would have dismissed the appeal. But the majority is the law: the direction is mandatory, diagnostic use is out.

[02:30] The Host's desk: Practice point for defence counsel?

[02:35] Criminal Law Desk: Police the direction. If counter-intuitive evidence goes in, the mandatory direction must come out, and the judge must not link it to your client. If that doesn't happen, you have a ground. And the Court confirmed something else for the defence: you are entitled to rely on a delay in complaint as consistent with innocence. A direction that quietly tells the jury delay is irrelevant breaches the right to present a defence.

[02:59] The Host's desk: The Supreme Court also reset sentencing for what the courts call aged-out offenders.

[03:07] Criminal Law Desk: These are people who committed serious offending as teenagers but were only charged as adults. The old approach treated their youth as a discount near the end of the sentencing exercise. The new method, which the Court has now confirmed and applied, flips that. You start by asking what would likely have happened to this person in the Youth Court. That notional youth outcome becomes the end point, not a starting point, and then you ask whether it should change. The Court allowed both appeals and sent them back for resentencing. Two more things you can use. A community-based sentence here means the full range, from a discharge without conviction right up to maximum home detention, not the narrow statutory definition. And this new method is not a guideline judgment. It applies on its own terms, including where someone persuades a court to reopen an old sentence.

[03:56] The Host's desk: To the Public Law Desk, and the Bill of Rights meets a gang patch.

[04:02] Public Law Desk: Here's the question. Can the Crown take a gang member's insignia, his patch, and is taking it ever so harsh that it breaches the Bill of Rights? The High Court says the forfeiture is absolute. Under the new gangs legislation, on conviction for displaying insignia in public, the property right is gone. No special words vesting it in the Crown are needed. But, and this is the part for your advice letters, the Crown cannot then just destroy it. A court direction is always required first. The Crown has no independent power to destroy or dispose of a forfeited patch, and an interested party, the defendant or a third party, can ask to be heard on how it's dealt with. On the rights question, the Court came close to the line. The patch carries real cultural and personal value. But forfeiture with a fine, and no imprisonment, is not grossly disproportionate. It doesn't shock the national conscience, so it isn't disproportionately severe punishment. The appeal succeeded, the order returning the patch was quashed, and the matter goes back for a destruction order.

[05:07] The Host's desk: To the Commercial Law Desk, and a financial markets penalty that sets the template.

[05:12] Commercial Law Desk: This is the first time the markets regulator has chased a pecuniary penalty for a company failing to file audited group accounts, so the method matters. A listed company stopped filing. Three years running, no audited group financial statements, despite reminder after reminder. The sole director was deemed to have contravened too. Here's the template the Court set. You fix the maximum. You find a starting point using the mandatory factors, and here that was a quarter of the maximum, moderately serious, negligence and mismanagement rather than dishonesty. Then you discount. Thirty per cent for a clean record, cooperation and early admissions. But, and this is the warning, the discount can never be so large it strips out deterrence. The company copped eight hundred and seventy-five thousand. The director a hundred and seventy-five, by instalments, and a three-year ban, deferred so the company isn't left with no director at all.

[06:06] The Host's desk: And a neat point on who can speak for a company in court.

[06:09] Commercial Law Desk: Can a company send its director, a non-lawyer, to run its appeal? The default is no. A company speaks through a lawyer. That's part of the price of limited liability, because it protects creditors who might never recover their costs. The director argued the company was broke and couldn't afford counsel. The Supreme Court said that cuts both ways. If you can't afford a lawyer, you can't meet an adverse costs award either. Add a complex appeal, and a director too emotionally invested to be objective, and leave was refused. The lesson for the profession: impecuniosity alone won't get your client's director to the lectern.

[06:45] The Host's desk: To the Practice and Procedure Desk, and a sharp one on appeal powers.

[06:49] Practice & Procedure Desk: Picture this. You're the respondent. You didn't cross-appeal. Can the appeal court still make an order in your favour? Yes, it can. The Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Appeal's rules let it give the judgment that ought to have been given, even for a party who didn't appeal, where the question was an inevitable consequence of the appeal and had been fully argued below. This came out of a long-running restraint order against a litigant. The Court of Appeal swapped a High Court order for a statutory one without a cross-appeal, and the loser cried foul on natural justice. The answer: it was arguable the party should have been heard on it, but the outcome was inevitable and the new order was actually less intrusive, so there was no miscarriage. Leave refused. The takeaway: don't assume the absence of a cross-appeal ties the court's hands. If the point flows inevitably from the appeal, it's live.

[07:37] The Host's desk: Also on the docket. A High Court decision on extinguishing historic easements over subdivision land, and a companion easements case reading down old rights of way to passage only. A summary judgment refused because intent six years back needed cross-examination. A probate case admitting medical reports as business records to prove testamentary capacity. A discharge without conviction refused to a temporary visa holder, on consequences that flowed from the offending, not the conviction. A leave decision in a Crown forest land and Treaty compensation claim. And a clutch of abuse-of-process strike-outs under the senior courts legislation, sparingly applied. All summarised, with citations, at ledger dot jade dot i-o.

[08:22] The Host's desk: That's the New Zealand brief. Twenty-six decisions, eight aired. The theme for your week: our top courts spent it drawing lines around how evidence is used, how the young are sentenced, and what the state may take. Lines that change advice on Monday.

[08:37] Content Standards: This episode was produced by BarNet OpenLaw the creators of JADE, in our knowledge kitchen, from the New Zealand edition of The Petal covering the twelfth to the fourteenth of June, twenty twenty-six, and reviewed under OpenLaw's content and podcasting standard. Because we believe in the speed of law, the voices in this program are AI-generated, using the latest combobulation technology. If you liked this podcast please subscribe and tell your friends. Two of today's conviction appeals have been sent back for retrial, the appellants are identified only by initials under court order, and the presumption of innocence applies. Nothing in this program is legal advice.

[09:12] The Host's desk: Ka kite anō. Drive safely out there.The Petal — New Zealand Edition · 12–14 June 2026