Supreme Court Rejects Leave to Appeal on Criminal History Inaccuracies

OUTCOME: [APPELLANT] v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2026] NZSC 87 [3 July 2026]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA SC 31/2026 [2026] NZSC 87

[APPELLANT] Applicant AND ATTORNEY-[ADDRESS]: [COUNSEL], Williams and Cooke JJ Counsel: [redacted] [COUNSEL] L [COUNSEL] for Respondent Judgment: 3 July 2026

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. ____________________________________________________________________

REASONS [1] The applicant, Mr [APPELLANT], seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal from a decision of the High Court which declined his application for judicial review relating to the accuracy of his criminal record.1 Background [2] Mr [APPELLANT] has criminal convictions. In 2024, he brought a judicial review proceeding alleging that, as a consequence of a number of actions of the [NAME], errors were introduced into his criminal history records. He referred to 19 drug-related convictions that had been included in his records that he alleged were inaccurate,

1 [APPELLANT] v Attorney-General [2026] NZCA 15 ([NAME], [APPELLANT] and Osborne JJ) [CA judgment]; and [APPELLANT] v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 38 ([NAME[NAME]) [HC judgment].

including nine convictions that had been overturned by the Court of Appeal,2 and two which were withdrawn at trial. He said that these inaccurate records had been used to his disadvantage in Family Court proceedings, and in relation to an application for a firearms licence by his partner. [3] Alongside his substantive challenge before the High Court, Mr [APPELLANT] applied for an injunction. The application by Mr [APPELLANT]’s partner for a firearms licence had been unsuccessful, and his partner had appealed to the District Court. Mr [APPELLANT] sought to stay the appeal on the basis that the police had filed inaccurate information in evidence for the appeal. This application was declined by [NAME[NAME] on the basis that there was no basis upon which such an order could be granted.3 [4] By the time the substantive proceedings came before the High Court, Mr [APPELLANT]’s criminal history records no longer recorded the 19 convictions Mr [APPELLANT] had referred to. But there remained an issue because a convictions history report produced by the Ministry of Justice recorded some of his conviction and sentence dates to be the same, and this was not accurate. [5] In declining the application for judicial review, [NAME[NAME] found that populating a convictions history report through the Ministry of Justice software system was not a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, which meant that there was no ability to challenge what had occurred by way of judicial review.4 He also held that these inaccuracies had been remedied.5 [6] Mr [APPELLANT] appealed to the Court of Appeal. [ADDRESS] disagreed with [NAME[NAME]’s finding that there was no decision amenable to judicial review, finding that the production of conviction history reports was amenable to judicial review challenge.[ADDRESS] accepted, however, that the High Court was right to say that all alleged errors with the reports had been corrected, and concluded that the proceedings

2 R v [APPELLANT] [2008] NZCA 285. 3 [APPELLANT] v Attorney-General [2024] NZHC 2005. 4 HC judgment, above n 1, at [28]. 5 At [23]–[24]. 6 CA judgment, above n 1, at [39]–[42].

were moot.[ADDRESS] also found that there had been administrative errors in the production of the reports rather than deliberate falsification.8 [7] In support of his application for leave, Mr [APPELLANT] renews his allegation of deliberate falsification of his criminal history records, contending that there have been miscarriages of justice as a consequence, and that the matters he wishes to raise are of public importance. Analysis [8] We agree with the Court of Appeal that the maintenance of accurate criminal history reports is important for the administration of justice,9 and with the Court of Appeal’s observation that: [48] The more pressing issue arising from the facts on this appeal, is why two separate reports from the same case management system, operated by the Ministry, contained several errors. Criminal and traffic history reports are relied on by the sentencing courts on a daily basis and it is concerning to find that both this report, and the [convictions history report] produced at the request of Mr [APPELLANT], contained inaccurate information. [9] But we nevertheless agree with the conclusions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the correction of all apparent errors with Mr [APPELLANT]’s criminal history means there is no longer a live issue in these proceedings, and that Mr [APPELLANT] has achieved everything he could achieve by way of this judicial review challenge. [ADDRESS] of Appeal also noted that there is a procedure to challenge the accuracy of criminal history records under the Privacy Act 2020.10 [10] We also consider that there is insufficient prospect of this Court overturning the factual finding that the inaccuracies in the criminal history were administrative errors and not the product of deliberate falsification. [11] For these reasons, we are not satisfied it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal under s 74(1) of the

7 At [56]. 8 At [47]. 9 See at [39]–[42]. 10 At [50]–[55]; and see HC judgment, above n 1, at [29].

Senior Courts Act 2016. The proposed appeal is not of general or public importance, and neither will there be a substantial miscarriage of justice if the appeal is not heard by the Court.11 Result [12] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors: [redacted]

11 Section 74(1) and (2)(a)–(b); and [RESPONDENT] v [COMPANY] (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369 at [5].