Ruling confirms importance of accurate criminal history reports for administration of justice
The New Zealand Supreme Court has dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling determining that administrative errors in the production of a conviction history report did not amount to deliberate falsification.
The applicant in Yorston v Attorney-General [2026] NZSC 87 had criminal convictions. In a judicial review proceeding brought before the High Court in 2024, he alleged that:
The applicant also applied for an injunction.
Before the District Court, the applicant’s partner appealed from the rejection of the firearms licence. Seeking to stay that appeal, the applicant argued that the police filed inaccurate information in the appeal evidence.
The High Court judge declined this application for lack of a basis. Once the substantive judicial review proceeding came before the High Court, the criminal history records no longer contained the 19 convictions.
However, the conviction history report produced by the Ministry of Justice was inaccurate.
The same High Court judge denied the judicial review application concerning the accuracy of the applicant’s criminal record. The judge pointed out that these inaccuracies had been corrected.
The judge deemed judicial review inappropriate because the report’s production via the ministry’s software system was not a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. While the appeal court said judicial review could address the production of conviction history reports, it acknowledged that the proceedings were moot because the reports had been remedied.
The appeal court added that the Privacy Act 2020 included a procedure to challenge the accuracy of criminal history records.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal. He again alleged deliberate falsification of his criminal history records.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand refused leave to appeal. Like the appeal court, the Supreme Court confirmed the importance of maintaining accurate criminal history reports for the administration of justice.
However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal of New Zealand and the High Court of New Zealand that the proceedings no longer involved a live issue, given the correction of all apparent errors in the applicant’s criminal history.
The Supreme Court found no:
