The Petal — New Zealand Edition: 12–14 June 2026

A New Zealand current-awareness special, covering the Supreme Court and High Court for 12–14 June 2026 — twenty-six decisions reported, eight aired. The Supreme Court rewrites how counter-intuitive evidence may be run in sexual cases (educative only, never diagnostic, with a mandatory jury direction) and resets sentencing for "aged-out" offenders around a notional Youth Court outcome. The High Court holds that gang-insignia forfeiture is absolute on conviction but Crown-supervised — no patch destroyed without a court order — and marks the Bill of Rights threshold for property forfeiture. Plus the first markets-regulator penalty template for financial-reporting failures, when a company may appear other than by counsel, and orders for a non-appealing respondent. Produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE, from The Petal. An all–New Zealand AI voice cast. Nothing in this program is legal advice. Two conviction appeals were sent back for retrial — appellants identified only by initials under court order; the presumption of innocence applies.In this episode:MB v The King [2026] NZSC 76 — counter-intuitive evidence is educative only and may never be used diagnostically; a mandatory direction is required (unanimous). https://jade.io/article/1232825TW v The King [2026] NZSC 77 — the companion appeal; a direction treating absence of contemporaneous complaint as irrelevant breaches the right to present a defence (3:2). https://jade.io/article/1232826F (SC 98/2025) v The King [2026] NZSC 78 — the inverted sentencing method for "aged-out" offenders, built on a notional Youth Court outcome. https://jade.io/article/1232827Solicitor-General v Leef [2026] NZHC 1628 — Gangs Act forfeiture of insignia is absolute on conviction but the Crown cannot destroy a patch without a court direction; s 9 NZBORA threshold not reached. https://jade.io/article/1232821Financial Markets Authority v Qex Logistics Ltd [2026] NZHC 1049 — the penalty template for financial-reporting failures: maximum, mandatory-factor starting point, deterrence-preserving discount. https://jade.io/article/1232804NZ Premium Trading Co Ltd v Affco NZ Ltd [2026] NZSC 80 — a company may appear other than by counsel only in a deserving case; impecuniosity alone is not enough (Mannix restated). https://jade.io/article/1232828Tomar v Khatri [2026] NZSC 75 — an appeal court may make orders for a non-appealing respondent where the point flows inevitably from the appeal. https://jade.io/article/1232823— CASE NOTES —MB v The King [2026] NZSC 76Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Kós, Miller and Cooke JJ · 11 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232825Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Criminal Law — Conviction Appeal (counter-intuitive evidence).Held (appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered; unanimous): Counter-intuitive evidence is educative only — it corrects general misconceptions about how sexual-abuse victims behave and says nothing about the particular complainant; it may never be used diagnostically or linked to the complainant's account. The judge must give the mandatory direction prohibiting diagnostic reasoning, not leave it to the prosecutor or an agreed statement. Misuse plus the missing direction created a real risk to a credibility-dependent verdict.Why aired: With TW, the new governing framework for counter-intuitive evidence — it changes prosecutorial conduct, agreed statements and mandatory directions in every such trial.Caution: Appellant pseudonymised by court order; convictions quashed and retrial ordered — the presumption of innocence applies. Survivor-sensitive register: principle and consequence only.TW v The King [2026] NZSC 77Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Kós, Miller and Cooke JJ · 11 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232826Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Criminal Law — Conviction Appeal (right to present a defence).Held (appeal allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered; Ellen France and Kós JJ dissenting — 3:2): Heard with MB. The agreed statement was probabilistic; the prosecutor linked the evidence to the complainant's delayed complaint; and the judge omitted the mandatory direction and linked the evidence to the facts. The combined effect conveyed that delay was irrelevant, impermissibly limiting the right to present a defence under s 25(e) of the Bill of Rights. Dissent: the agreed-statement challenge was raised first on appeal and the departures were not material.Why aired: The right-to-present-a-defence holding — directions that treat absence of contemporaneous complaint as irrelevant now breach s 25(e).Caution: Appellant pseudonymised; identifying particulars suppressed until final disposition; presumption of innocence applies. Survivor-sensitive register observed.F (SC 98/2025) v The King [2026] NZSC 78Ellen France, Williams, Kós, Miller and Cooke JJ · 11 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232827Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Sentencing — Sentence Appeal (aged-out offenders).Held (appeals allowed; remitted for resentencing): Where an aged-out offender — serious offending as a young person, charged as an adult — is sentenced without considering the likely Oranga Tamariki Act disposition, the sentence is in error. The notional Youth Court outcome becomes the end point of the analysis, then tested by a second evaluative stage. A "community-based sentence" bears a broad meaning — from discharge without conviction up to maximum home detention. The method is not a guideline judgment and applies on its own terms, including on reopening.Why aired: Confirms and applies the inverted sentencing methodology for aged-out offenders.Caution: Appellants anonymised; one remained in custody pending resentencing.Solicitor-General v Leef [2026] NZHC 1628Becroft J · 11 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232821Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Criminal Law / Bill of Rights — forfeiture; disproportionately severe punishment.Held (appeal allowed): Gangs Act 2024 forfeiture of insignia on conviction is absolute, and "otherwise disposed of" precludes return to the offender. The very high s 9 NZBORA threshold is not reached: though the patch carries real cultural value, forfeiture with a fine and no imprisonment is not grossly disproportionate. A court direction is always required before destruction or disposal; the Crown has no independent power to destroy a patch, and a disposal direction is a "sentence" appealable by the prosecutor.Why aired: Gangs Act forfeiture is absolute but Crown-supervised, and marks the s 9 NZBORA threshold for property forfeiture.Financial Markets Authority v Qex Logistics Ltd [2026] NZHC 1049Powell J · 23 April 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232804Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Commercial Law — Financial Markets Regulation (pecuniary penalty methodology).Held (orders granted): A declaration of contravention is a precondition to a pecuniary penalty; declarations were made against the company and, by deeming, its sole director for failing to prepare and lodge audited group financial statements over three years. Methodology: fix the maximum; set a starting point on the mandatory factors; then adjust against the Act's objectives. The maxima were $5m and $1m; moderately serious conduct justified 25% starting points; a 30% discount was allowed, but not so large as to remove deterrence. A three-year banning order (deferred to 1 July 2026) and instalments were approved.Why aired: The penalty template for financial-reporting failures, in a first-of-kind FMA action.NZ Premium Trading Co Ltd v Affco NZ Ltd [2026] NZSC 80Ellen France, Williams and Miller JJ · 12 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232828Signal: Illustrative · 5 stars · Practice and Procedure — Representation; Company Law — Limited Liability.Held (application dismissed): A company may conduct proceedings only through a lawyer unless the court permits otherwise in a deserving case — part of the price of limited liability, protecting creditors who may not recover costs. Impecuniosity alone does not justify leave, as inability to instruct counsel also entails inability to meet an adverse costs award. Leave was refused given the proposed representative's emotional involvement, the complexity of the appeal and the need for the independence of counsel.Why aired: Restates the Mannix test at apex level — impecuniosity is not enough.Tomar v Khatri [2026] NZSC 75Ellen France, Kós and Cooke JJ · 10 June 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1232823Signal: Illustrative · 5 stars · Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal; appellate powers.Held (leave to appeal dismissed): The Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules permit the court to give any judgment that ought to have been given, including in favour of a respondent who has not appealed; where setting aside the High Court order made a vexatious-litigant restraining order an inevitable and fully-canvassed question, it could be determined despite the absence of a cross-appeal. No civil miscarriage arose — the outcome was inevitable and the new order was less rights-intrusive than the indefinite order it replaced.Why aired: Clarifies the appellate power to make orders for a non-appealing respondent where the point flows inevitably from the appeal.Also reported: Gray-Gill (companion to Leef), Adams v Alexander, Estate of Ruru v Attorney-General, Warren v Corrections. Full docket and per-decision links at ledger.jade.io.Produced by BarNet OpenLaw — the creators of