Appeals
An appeal is not simply a second opportunity to argue a case. It requires the identification of legal error, procedural unfairness, or other matters that may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Appeals demand careful analysis of the record, precise legal argument, and strategic judgment.
James has substantial experience in appellate advocacy across conviction, sentence, bail, pre-trial, and Solicitor-General appeals. He has appeared in numerous appeals in the High Court and Court of Appeal and has argued several appeals before the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
His appellate work spans the full range of criminal offending, including serious violence, sexual allegations, drug offending, and homicide. He has successfully acted in cases resulting in convictions being quashed, sentences reduced, pre-trial rulings overturned, and bail granted pending trial or appeal.
Not every appeal proceeds as of right. Further appeals to higher courts require permission to appeal, often involving issues of general or public importance or a risk of substantial miscarriage of justice. James has successfully obtained leave to appeal in the higher courts on multiple occasions.
James’ Supreme Court work has resulted in convictions being overturned and sentences being reconsidered.
Expertise
Case examples
Some of the recent cases that James has been involved in.
TW v R – Supreme Court, 2026
TW was convicted of sexual offending against his son. James appealed the convictions and sentence in the Court of Appeal. James successfully argued there was an error in TW’s trial, but the Court of Appeal found no miscarriage. Instead, the Court reduced his sentence. James obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. There he successfully argued that the error in TW’s trial led to a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed TW’s appeal and set aside his convictions.
N v R – Supreme Court, 2026
N was convicted following trial of rape and had pleaded guilty to underage sex. N was 15 at the time of the rape. James represented N on appeal. In the Court of Appeal, James had N’s prison sentence reduced both as to starting point and reductions. Because of N’s age at the time, he further appealed to the Supreme Court, with James successfully obtaining leave to appeal. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and ordered that N be resentenced following rehabilitative interventions and taking into account the outcome that would have occurred in the Youth Court had N been charged at the time.
TC v R – Court of Appeal, 2024
TC was convicted following trial of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and aggravated assault on a Police officer. James represented TC on the appeal. James successfully argued that justice had miscarried in TC’s trial because the trial Judge had not adequately directed the jury on the issue of self-defence on the wounding charge. The Court of Appeal allowed TC’s appeal, set the conviction for wounding aside and ordered a retrial.
TC v R – Court of Appeal, 2021; and Supreme Court, 2021
TC was convicted following trial of rape of a young person. He advanced the defence of sexsomnia—unconscious involuntary actions while asleep—at trial. James argued TC’s appeal against that conviction. James successfully argued that the trial Judge had erred in directing the jury on sexsomnia. The Court of Appeal allowed TC’s appeal, set the conviction aside and ordered a retrial.
The Court of Appeal rejected an allied argument that sexsomnia should not be treated as an insanity defence. Ordinarily, a successful appeal cannot be further appealed; there was no precedent for a further appeal. However, James successfully argued before a full panel of the Supreme Court that the Criminal Procedure Act can be interpreted in a way to allow a further appeal on a legal issue allied to the retrial. The Court granted leave to appeal on that point.
D v Police – Court of Appeal, 2019; and Supreme Court, 2021
D was ordered to be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register after pleading guilty to possessing objectionable publications. He appealed the registration order to the High Court, Court of Appeal and, eventually, the Supreme Court. James argued the legal issues in the Court of Appeal and the merits of D’s appeal in the Supreme Court; another lawyer argued the balance. In the Supreme Court, James argued that because the underlying legislation was enacted after D’s offending, the imposition of registration on the Child Sex Offender Register was a retrospective penalty prohibited under the Sentencing Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and, as such, he should not be registered. The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed D’s appeal and quashed the order. The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment led to an urgent law charge, but Parliament made a specific carve-out for D.
SC v R – Court of Appeal, 2020
SC was convicted following trial of the rape of his partner because he continued having sex with her after she withdrew her consent. SC appealed his conviction and sentence. James argued the sentence appeal. James successfully argued that the sentence imposed on C—of four years’ imprisonment—was manifestly excessive having regard to the fact that the complainant had otherwise consented to the sex but withdrew it and SC continued after that point. The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed; it allowed his appeal and reduced the sentence to 18 months’ imprisonment.
Discuss an appeal or referral.
Contact James directly for instructions, referrals, or a confidential discussion.
