New Zealand

Appellant Ah-Chong was convicted of assault with intent to commit sexual violation by rape.  As a defense, Ah-Chong claimed that the victim consented to the sexual activity.  The trial judge gave the jury instructions that they had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had no reasonable grounds to believe that consent existed.  The appellant argued that the jury instructions were wrong, claiming that there were two separate mens rea elements: one for the assault and one for intention to rape.

The plaintiff worked at a motel. She alleged that her manager made offensive comments to her and spread rumors about her in the community. The court found that the plaintiff suffered a detriment in the course of her employment under the Human Rights Act.

Ms. Bullock, the plantiff, was made to sit in a row behind the male employees and was not given a speaking role in a company event. The plantiff believed the her employer was participating in gender discrimination and attempting to justify this as a company policy that followed traditional Mauri customs. The tribunal ruled that Ms. Bullock's employer was in fact practicing gender discrimination according to the Human Rights Act of 1993.

This case concerned the determination of what constitutes relationship property in a divorce proceeding and how trusts may affect this determination (e.g. if a sham trust is implemented to hide assets, therefore affecting a woman’s economic rights in a divorce).  The term “relationship property” is defined in the Property Relationships Act of 1976, the principles of which focus on the equality of spouses and that at the end of a relationship, any economic divisions should reflect equal contributions made by the couple during the relationship.

Appellant F, the mother of three children, who was residing in New Zealand, sought a decision from a higher court concerning a previous custody decision that granted N, the father residing in Australia, custody rights. F contended that N had been physically abusive in the past toward the children, and that they were at risk of physical and psychological harm if in his custody. The High Court concluded that the children should be in New Zealand residing with their mother.

The Crimes Act (“the CA”) of New Zealand criminalizes offenses against the person, property and the public order and sets out punishments and defenses for such crimes. The CA applies to all offenses occurring within New Zealand and allows for extraterritorial jurisdiction over New Zealand citizens or residents who have committed certain offenses outside of New Zealand including sexual crimes against children and young persons outside New Zealand. Part 7 of the CA broadly defines sexual violence to include rape or the unlawful sexual connection with another person.

Part 8 of the Crimes Act (the “CA”) of New Zealand covers crimes against a person including homicide, infanticide, assault on a child, assault on persons in a family relationship, acid throwing, female genital mutilation, coerced marriage and abduction. Section 194 provides a maximum sentence of 2 years for an assault by a male against any female or for an assault against any child under the age of 14.

Part 9 of the Crimes Act (the “CA”) of New Zealand covers crimes violating a person’s reputation and personal privacy, including through the possession, publication, export or sale of intimate visual recordings.

The plaintiff was a sex worker providing commercial sexual services at a brothel. She alleged her manager had violated the Human Rights Act 1993 by subjecting her to repeated unwelcome and offensive sexual conduct detrimental to her employment. The Tribunal found for the plaintiff, and further found that the owner of the brothel was vicariously liable for the employee’s actions.

The Domestic Violence – Victims’ Protection Act 2018 (the “Amending Act”) is an Act which amended the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the “ER Act”) to provide employees who are affected by family violence with a right to request a short-term change (2-months or shorter) to their working arrangements.