TANIWHA V R SC 16/2010
Leave to appeal dismissed because, even if the phrasing arguably departs from the statutory wording, there was no evidence that the accused's circumstances or characteristics meant the jury could have been misled in a way that affected the verdict; the judge followed the Court of Appeal specimen direction and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 16/2010
- Parties
- Applicant: Rodney Paul Taniwha; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 May 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal (sexual Violation by Rape) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Consent, Reasonable Belief, Jury Directions, Section 128 Crimes Act 1961, Mootness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rodney Paul Taniwha
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Violation by Rape) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the jury direction using the phrase 'no reasonable person in the accused's shoes' impermissibly departs from s 128 of the Crimes Act 1961
- 2 Whether the jury was distracted from evaluating the accused's subjective account by the direction given
- 3 Whether the issue is moot because there was no evidence that the alleged misdirection could have affected the verdict
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal dismissed because, even if the phrasing arguably departs from the statutory wording, there was no evidence that the accused's circumstances or characteristics meant the jury could have been misled in a way that affected the verdict; the judge followed the Court of Appeal specimen direction and the issue was therefore moot.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
TANIWHA V R SC 16/2010 12 May 2010IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 16/2010 [2010] NZSC 50 RODNEY PAUL TANIWHAvTHE QUEENCourt: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel: W C Pyke for Applicant N P Chisnall for Crown Judgment: 12 May 2010JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS[1] The applicant's appeal against conviction for sexual violation by rape was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.1 His defence at trial was that he believed on reasonable grounds that the complainant was consenting. He has sought leave to appeal to this Court on the ground that the Judge misdirected the jury in relation to this defence. The Judge in fact gave a direction which followed the Court of Appeal's specimen direction in R v Guatama.2 The jury was told that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have a reasonable1 R v Taniwha [2010] NZCA 15.2 R v Guatama CA 275/01, 13 December 2001 at [39].belief that the complaint was consenting and that one way that the Crown could do that would be to satisfy the jury "that no reasonable person in the accused's shoes could have thought that the complainant was consenting". [2] It is said for the applicant that this way of putting the issue departs impermissibly from the wording of s 128 of the Crimes Act 1961. The argument appears to be that it excludes consideration of reasonable grounds based on the facts as the accused believed them to be, thereby distracting the jury from an evaluation of the applicant's account of the relevant events. [3] This Court has previously concluded, in refusing leave in R v Can,3 that the issue sought to be raised is moot where there is no evidence upon which the proposed interpretation of the section might make a difference. So it is in this case. There is nothing suggested about the circumstances, or put forward concerning the characteristics of the applicant himself, which the jury might have omitted to take into account as a result of being directed as they were. There were no circumstances or characteristics of which it could be said that they might have peculiarly affected the perceptions of the applicant. A test of what a reasonable person "in his shoes", that is, in the applicant's circumstances, might believe on reasonable grounds therefore could not be said to have inappropriately diverged from the statutory test in this case.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington3 R v Can [2007] NZSC 93 at [7].