HART V R SC 74/2009

HART V R SC 74/2009

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether s 35(2) Evidence Act 2006 permitted admission of the prior consistent statement and whether the trial judge's jury directions on its use were legally correct.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SC 74/2009
Parties
Appellant: Phillip Wayne Hart; Respondent: The Queen
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted (supreme Court)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court.
Legal Topics
Previous Consistent Statement, Section 35(2) Evidence Act 2006, Jury Directions, Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence Criminal Law Appeal/procedure Previous Consistent Statement Section 35(2) Evidence Act 2006 Jury Directions Admissibility of Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Wayne Hart

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant's previous consistent statement was admissible under s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the use to be made of that statement

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether s 35(2) Evidence Act 2006 permitted admission of the prior consistent statement and whether the trial judge's jury directions on its use were legally correct.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal limited to the approved grounds: (1) admissibility under s 35(2) Evidence Act 2006 and (2) correctness of trial judge's jury directions.