New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of statements

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2021

BARTLETT v R [2021] NZCA 152

Citation

[2021] NZCA 152
Court

Court of Appeal

No miscarriage of justice: Crown's opening, while using 'overwhelming', did not deprive jury of impartial assessment given context and judicial directions; closing was proper advocacy and case on identity was overwhelming; police re-questioning about newly discovered keys after re-cautioning was not overbearing and the statements were admissible; sentencing Judge properly applied s 27 factors, allowed a one year (10%) discount and the overall nine year sentence was not manifestly excessive.
24 Apr 2020

BAYLIS v R [2020] NZHC 815

Citation

[2020] NZHC 815
Court

High Court

The appellate court found no miscarriage of justice: the trial Judge did not err in admitting and weighing the propensity evidence and Kik messages for the joined charges, the Judge's credibility and reliability findings were open to him given the advantages of hearing the witnesses and the corroborating circumstantial evidence, and the mother's conduct did not justify aborting the trial; accordingly the convictions were upheld.
21 Apr 2020

DAVIS v THE PLUMBERS, GASFITTERS AND DRAINLAYERS BOARD [2020] NZHC 782

Citation

[2020] NZHC 782
Court

High Court

Section 92(4) was not breached: the investigator was acting within investigatory function when obtaining the contested statement, the preliminary report and invitation to comment satisfied s92(4) and (5), the applicant had opportunity to respond and the final report considered those submissions; admissibility of the statement is a matter for the Board at any disciplinary hearing if the investigator seeks to rely on it; judicial review was premature and inappropriate to intervene at this stage, so the judicial review application was dismissed.
9 Jun 2017

MICHAEL JOHN DENNEY v R [2017] NZSC 85

Citation

[2017] NZSC 85
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were specific to the case and did not raise matters of general or public importance and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice given the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the verdict was reasonable and the trial judge's directions were sufficient.
27 Apr 2017

LEVI HOHEPA REUBEN V R [2017] NZCA 138

Citation

[2017] NZCA 138
Court

Court of Appeal

Reuben: starting point of nine years for a premeditated, violent prison assault was available and justified; allowance of a 10% youth discount and a 20% discount for earlier offer to plead manslaughter produced a substituted sentence of six years six months with a minimum period of three years three months. Tihi: the post-offence letters were admissible and, although a passing remark by the prosecutor risked overstepping s32, the remark did not create a real risk of miscarriage and the conviction stands.
4 May 2016

WAIWAI v R [2016] NZCA 167

Citation

[2016] NZCA 167
Court

Court of Appeal

The conviction was upheld because the jury could reasonably conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant participated in the assault: timing uncertainties left an opportunity contrary to the alibi, the identification by an experienced officer who had prior dealings with the appellant was reliable, Munro's statement and testimony were admissible and not unfairly prejudicial, and references to gang context were relevant, responsive to defence questioning and properly directed by the judge.
14 Jul 2015

BAKER v R CA687/2014 [2015] NZCA 306

Citation

[2015] NZCA 306
Court

Court of Appeal

Judge properly declared Stella Norman hostile and correctly directed jury that Norman's statements were not admissible against Baker; Baker's appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed and 17-year minimum upheld under s 104. However, in Innes' trial the Judge failed to direct the jury they must be sure that Innes knew Baker had a knife; that omission was material and caused a miscarriage of justice, therefore Innes' convictions for murder and aggravated wounding are quashed and a retrial ordered; withdrawal defence was not available on the facts.

New Zealand Case Law

BARTLETT v R [2021] NZCA 152

BAYLIS v R [2020] NZHC 815

DAVIS v THE PLUMBERS, GASFITTERS AND DRAINLAYERS BOARD [2020] NZHC 782

MICHAEL JOHN DENNEY v R [2017] NZSC 85

LEVI HOHEPA REUBEN V R [2017] NZCA 138

WAIWAI v R [2016] NZCA 167

BAKER v R CA687/2014 [2015] NZCA 306