The judgment this afternoon ruled the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender Kim should be reinstated, meaning he could be extradited.
But Kim's lawyer Tony Ellis has several options up his sleeve to delay the extradition.
He is requesting Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi reconsider surrendering Kim based on his health issues, which include depression, liver disease, and a brain tumour.
"Imagine being locked in a Chinese jail with all this," he said to the Herald.
"It's mind-bogglingly frightening."
He believed it was the first decision of its kind.
"I'm sure the decision's going to be analysed and pulled apart by numerous international law experts across the world because it is an example, a bad example, of the only western country to agree to extradite somebody to China, so it's a backwards step for international human rights law of some significance," he said.
He said Kim was trying to put a "brave face" on as much as was possible.
"I've just been explaining to him what we do next and he doesn't want to dwell on that because it's not the best news to get. Obviously, he's very disappointed."
If the Minister declines their request they will then take that decision through the appeals process.
In the meantime, Ellis and his team will also contact the United Nations Human Rights Committee and request an injunction of sorts.
"New Zealand has never been faced with that before so we don't really know whether they will agree to it or not."
At Kim's last hearing before the Supreme Court in February, his legal team argued he could face torture when extradited, risked not receiving a fair trial, and might not have access to life-saving health care.
On behalf of the Crown, Solicitor-General Una Jagose, QC, said if Kim was tried and detained in Shanghai, where Chinese authorities say he will be, there were no substantive grounds that he would be at risk of torture.
In response to the defence's point around undetectable torture, such as white torture where sensory deprivation is used to elicit a confession, the Crown contended this was not the place to question the general state of China, but instead the risk to Kim.
The Crown said Chinese authorities would honour fair trial rights, and China understood the concerns of New Zealand courts.
The court also heard China had made assurances Kim would have access to medical attention and treatment, as well as access to medical professionals of his choice.
In today's judgement, Justices Glazebrook, Ellen France, and Arnold granted the appeal, with Justices O'Regan and French dissenting.
The judgement stated the assurances received from the People's Republic of China were enough that the Minister of Justice could be satisfied there was "no real risk" of Kim being tortured.
"We reiterate the point made in the earlier judgment that, while the prohibition on torture is absolute, if no substantial grounds exist for believing an individual accused is at risk of torture because of the assurances provided, the individual should not avoid prosecution for a serious crime."
They also said the Minister could be satisfied there was no real risk Kim wouldn't receive a fair trial.
A decision on costs is reserved.
Court timeline:
2009 – Chinese sex worker Peiyun Chen is found beaten and strangled.
2010 – A warrant for Kyung Yup Kim's arrest is issued by Chinese authorities.
2011 – New Zealand receives a request for the extradition of Kim to stand trial for homicide in China.
2013 – District Court determines Kim eligible for extradition.
2015 – Then Minister of Justice Amy Adams, after seeking diplomatic assurances from China as to Kim's treatment, determines Kim be surrendered to the People's Republic of China.
2016 – Kim challenges Adams' decision by judicial review, which is won in the High Court. On review, Adams again finds Kim eligible for extradition to China. A further judicial review is sought and lost.
2019 – Court of Appeal quashes Adams' decision and the case heads to the Supreme Court.
2020 – Supreme Court holds a substantive hearing to hear the appeal of the Crown in the quashed decision and cross-appeal of Kim.
2021 – Supreme Court Judges direct a report be filed regarding issues of torture and fair trial, focusing on the safety of Kim.
February 2022 – Both the Crown and council argue their case for extradition.
