New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of evidence

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2022

A (CA83/2020) v R [2022] NZCA 72

Citation

[2022] NZCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined leave to adduce the proposed fresh evidence: the Vaseline evidence, although treated as fresh and credible, was not cogent because the seized jar was properly regarded as contextual corroboration of lubricant in the garage rather than the exact item used in the offending and therefore would not have led to a not guilty verdict; the brother's affidavit was not fresh, was temporally irrelevant to the 2016–2017 offending period and, even at its highest, could not contradict trial evidence that the appellant controlled computer access and could use the computer via passwords or…
15 Jul 2021

AZ v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2021] NZHC 1787

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1787
Court

High Court

The application to intervene and to adduce evidence was dismissed because the MPS's proposed submissions and additional evidence were not relevant to the discrete, agreed legal question before the Court; allowing intervention or new evidence would risk expanding the narrow issue, lengthening the hearing and increasing costs; Rule 20.16(3) requires special reasons for fresh evidence which were not present.
19 Feb 2020

SHANE KARI HENRY v R [2020] NZSC 10

Citation

[2020] NZSC 10
Court

Supreme Court

An extension of time to apply for leave was appropriate but leave to appeal on the convictions was denied because the contested evidentiary matters did not raise issues of public importance nor a sufficient risk of miscarriage of justice given the Crown case, trial judge directions, expert evidence and existing precedent (Mahomed); consequently the convictions stand.
30 Nov 2018

LIU v CUTTING [2018] NZHC 3130

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3130
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because appellants failed to raise any question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument or of sufficient importance to outweigh cost and delay; r 3.10 applies to retainers begun before 1 August 2008 so rr 3.4–3.5 did not apply; respondent entitled to costs on a 2B basis of $10,481; disbursements of $1,431.11 allowed to appellants in respect of the Williams J appeal; outstanding District Court costs to be fixed in the District Court.
3 Jul 2018

R (CA129/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 235

Citation

[2018] NZCA 235
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the evidence of MA's self-harm and attempted suicide was admissible as relevant context explaining reporting and retraction and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice given the judge's directions; the proposed fresh evidence (immigration/customs records) was neither sufficiently fresh nor cogent and would not have affected the safety of the verdict; consequently the application to adduce further evidence was declined and the appeal against conviction was dismissed; a publication prohibition under s200 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 was made.
8 Mar 2017

DIANNE COLLEEN KEMP v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 110

Citation

[2017] NZHC 110
Court

High Court

The Justices of the Peace improperly excluded relevant and admissible evidence (damages report and photographs) without a proper basis, thereby depriving the defendant of a fundamental trial right and creating a real risk of miscarriage of justice; accordingly leave to a second appeal was granted, the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.
10 Aug 2016

Gupta v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 212
Court

District Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant raised factual disputes about the weight and admissibility of medical evidence and the correctness of the suspension decision; the District Court's findings that suspension under s117(1) was justified were open on the evidence and did not raise a question of law under s162.
3 Aug 2016

MACFARLANE v INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1784

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1784
Court

High Court

The non-party discovery application was granted and thus the appellants were successful on that interlocutory application; consequently the respondents are not entitled to costs of that application and costs should lie where they fall.
12 Feb 2016

R v JOHN SAMUEL DAVID DRIVER [2016] NZHC 155

Citation

[2016] NZHC 155
Court

High Court

The judge granted the Crown's application to admit the DVD recording of the complainant's interview as the complainant's evidence in chief to enable proper preparation for the trial, and made an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings until the final disposition of the trial; reasons to follow.
6 May 2015

H v L CA104/2015 [2015] NZCA 153

Citation

[2015] NZCA 153
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the grounds do not raise any question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument nor an interest of sufficient importance to justify a second appeal; the lower courts had given proper consideration to procedural and substantive matters, the applicant had opportunities to adduce evidence, and the balance of risks and the best interests of the child justified leaving the parenting order in place.