R V GWAZE SC 93/2009

R V GWAZE SC 93/2009

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved the grounds to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay statements attributed to Professor Rode and, if so, whether that error necessitated ordering a new trial.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SC 93/2009
Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: George Evans Gwaze
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Granted by the Supreme Court on 23 November 2009
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Hearsay Admissibility, Admission of Expert Statements, New Trial, Appellate Review
Criminal Law Evidence Law Appeals Hearsay Admissibility Admission of Expert Statements New Trial Appellate Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

George Evans Gwaze

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Granted by the Supreme Court on 23 November 2009

  1. 1 Whether the trial Judge erred in law in admitting hearsay evidence concerning statements said to have been made by Professor Rode
  2. 2 Whether, if there was an error of law, the Crown's appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved the grounds to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay statements attributed to Professor Rode and, if so, whether that error necessitated ordering a new trial.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Approved grounds: (i) Whether the trial Judge erred in law in admitting at the respondent's trial hearsay evidence concerning statements said to have been made by Professor Rode. (ii) Whether, if there was an error of law, the Crown's appeal should have been allowed and a new trial ordered.