W (CA641/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 90
Leave to appeal was granted because the Court was satisfied the statutory criteria were met: there was a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice arising from the admission of Family Court evidence without caution regarding self-incrimination and from the District Court Judge's refusal to recuse and to allow...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZCA 90
- Parties
- Applicant: W; Respondent: THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 6 April 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal Under Ss 237 and 253 CPA
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Perjury, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Recusal, Withdrawal of Counsel, Miscarriage of Justice, Criminal Procedure Act 2011 Ss 237 and 253
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
W
Applicant
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal Under Ss 237 and 253 CPA
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether admission of answers given in Family Court without a caution regarding privilege against self-incrimination created a miscarriage of justice in the District Court perjury trial
- 2 Whether the District Court Judge should have recused himself
- 3 Whether leave should have been granted where counsel was refused leave to withdraw shortly before trial
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the Court was satisfied the statutory criteria were met: there was a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice arising from the admission of Family Court evidence without caution regarding self-incrimination and from the District Court Judge's refusal to recuse and to allow counsel to withdraw on the morning of trial.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
W (CA641/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 90 [6 April 2020]NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER AT [2018] NZDC 23200 PROHIBITINGPUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYINGPARTICULARS OF APPLICANT REMAINS IN FORCE.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA641/2019[2020] NZCA 90BETWEEN W (CA641/2019)ApplicantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: Goddard, Mallon and Thomas JJCounsel: E A Hall for ApplicantB F Fenton for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)6 April 2020 at 9.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is granted.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Goddard J)[1] W was convicted of perjury at a judge-alone trial in the District Court.1The conviction related to an affidavit she swore in Family Court proceedings. Herappeal to the High Court was dismissed.2 She seeks leave to bring a second appeal tothis Court under ss 237 and 253 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA).1 R v W [2018] NZDC 2543.2 W v R [2019] NZHC 2740.[2] We are satisfied that the criteria in ss 237(2) and 253(3) of the CPA are met, asa miscarriage of justice may have occurred. In particular, there may have been amiscarriage of justice as a result of:(a) the admission in the District Court perjury proceedings of answers Wgave in evidence in the Family Court proceedings in the course ofquestioning by the Judge and cross-examination, without the benefit ofa caution from the Family Court Judge in relation to the privilegeagainst self-incrimination;(b) the District Court Judge's decisions delivered on the morning of thetrial declining to recuse himself, and refusing leave for W's counsel towithdraw.[3] We therefore grant leave to appeal to this Court.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent