Compensation for emotional harm sought under Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act
In a recent case, the New Zealand Supreme Court declined to reconsider the law to uphold tort claims for secondary victims’ mental injuries arising from tortious acts beyond those resulting in a recognisable psychiatric illness or disorder.
The Supreme Court also refused to alter the law to allow tort claims even when the claimant did not witness the event or its immediate aftermath.
In June 1987, the respondent in Peka v Te Hei [2026] NZSC 121 and another man raped and murdered Mrs Hawkins’ 16-year-old daughter. After a jury trial, the respondent received a conviction and a life imprisonment sentence.
In Taunoa v Attorney-General [2007] NZSC 70, the Supreme Court addressed the mistreatment of certain prisoners, including the respondent. In 2018, the respondent was released on parole after serving more than 30 years in prison.
In 2020, the Crown agreed to pay the respondent $17,664 as compensation for his mistreatment, in breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
In November 2020, under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 (PVC Act), Mrs Hawkins claimed damages for emotional harm and exemplary damages for the effects of the respondent’s offending.
In November 2021, the Victims’ Special Claims Tribunal denied the claim for exemplary damages. However, the tribunal allowed the claim for emotional harm and ordered the respondent to pay Mrs Hawkins $15,000.
The tribunal found Mrs Hawkins entitled to damages for emotional harm as the victim of an offence under s 4 of the PVC Act, for assault and battery under the common law, and under the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act 1952.
In November 2022, the High Court allowed the respondent’s appeal and quashed the tribunal’s award. As the personal representative of Mrs Hawkins’ estate, the appellant appealed.
In February 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal and returned the claim to the tribunal. The appeal court said Mrs Hawkins might have a common law claim for psychiatric harm, a ground not yet considered by the High Court of New Zealand or the tribunal.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant appealed and challenged the limited basis for the referral back to the tribunal.
The respondent cross-appealed against the Court of Appeal of New Zealand’s decision recognising the appellant’s potential claim and referring that claim back to the tribunal for determination.
The Supreme Court granted leave, dismissed the appeal, and allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal. The court did not order costs.
Based on the evidence, the Supreme Court determined that Mrs Hawkins did not witness the incident or its immediate aftermath and did not develop a psychiatric illness or condition due to the event.
The court explained that changing the law of tort in this context would alter the law for a wider category of cases.
In the present proceeding, the court noted that it had little information and evidence in the context of current social needs to tackle the impacts of allowing the proposed changes.
The Supreme Court ruled that Mrs Hawkins’ death ended any tort claim for exemplary damages. The court confirmed that the Law Reform Act 1936 prevented an estate’s claim for such damages.
The Supreme Court found no claim for damages for mental injury under the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act.
The court refused to recognise a novel tort based on wrongful death. The court pointed out that Parliament was the one who should consider whether to amend the legislation to permit relatives to pursue bereavement damages on this basis.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
In proceedings involving a man found guilty of sexual violation by rape, the court issued a 7 August 2026 decision denying his application for leave to appeal, considering it unnecessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed conviction appeal.
On 23 June 2026, the court ruled that a defendant could rely on an objective basis to assert a reasonable belief in consent, independent of the mental condition rendering them unfit to stand trial, to negate involvement and responsibility.
In a proceeding in which a man in prison sought a writ of habeas corpus, the court made a 10 June 2026 decision extending the time for him to apply for leave to appeal but ultimately refusing to grant such leave.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
