Acquitted man was 17 during the alleged crime, 19 at the time of trial
In a case where the appellant recently received an acquittal for a murder allegedly committed when he was 17 years old, New Zealand’s Supreme Court deemed it inappropriate for the appeal to continue, given the final resolution of the charge.
In M (SC 29/2025) v R [2025] NZSC 159, the appellant was subject to a murder charge and was 19 years old at the time of trial.
New Zealand’s High Court denied the appellant’s continued interim name suppression. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision.
On 22 July 2025, the Supreme Court granted the appellant leave to appeal the appeal court decision. On 23 October 2025, he received an acquittal. He wanted his appeal to continue despite his acquittal.
The appellant’s counsel acknowledged that the appeal was moot due to the acquittal.
However, counsel alleged that continuing the appeal would be valuable because the appeal court ruling served as the authority for denying interim name suppression for very young defendants and other youths.
Counsel added that the Supreme Court would unlikely have an opportunity to address this generally or publicly important matter in the near future because a case would be unlikely to reach it and receive arguments and a decision before trial.
The Crown accepted that it would be appropriate to continue interim name suppression for 20 days to enable the appellant to bring a permanent name suppression application and that suppression should continue until such application’s determination.
However, the Crown considered it inappropriate for the appeal to proceed, as the issue was currently academic. The Crown argued that the appeal failed to raise issues:
The Supreme Court of New Zealand revoked leave to appeal and vacated the appeal hearing set for 13 November 2025. The Supreme Court issued an interim order continuing the suppression of the appellant’s name, address, occupation, and identifying particulars on the specified terms.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the appeal engaged an issue of general or public importance, which was why the appellant received leave.
However, the Supreme Court found it inappropriate for the appeal to continue, given the changed circumstances.
The Supreme Court held that another appeal without a final resolution of the charges would need to address the issue of general or public importance. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant’s acquittal inevitably coloured any consideration of his appeal.
