New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dna evidence

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2023

W (CA475/2021) v R [2023] NZCA 207

Citation

[2023] NZCA 207
Court

Court of Appeal

The central incriminating evidence was the text messages and surrounding context; counsel had adequately prepared and addressed opportunity at trial, any evidence of an offered voluntary DNA sample was irrelevant because police never requested one, and the appellant could not show counsel's conduct created a reasonable possibility of an acquittal; therefore the conviction stands though extension of time is granted.
14 Apr 2023

MADHUR SHARMA v R [2023] NZSC 34

Citation

[2023] NZSC 34
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues were fact specific and not of general or public importance, there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice, and the jury could rationally have convicted on charge five alone on the basis of corroborative DNA evidence while rejecting other charges due to frailties in the complainant's evidence; R v Dhillon was distinguishable and the separate trials direction was not the main basis for the decision.
7 Apr 2022

KING v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 695 [7April 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 695
Court

High Court

Court found no NZBORA breach: relevant ESR/Police material was disclosed in the ordinary course once requested, ESR lawfully refrained from using or stating databank comparisons absent an admissible suspect sample (CIBSA s71), prosecutor's conduct did not amount to abuse of process and detention was not arbitrary; plaintiff's NZBORA damages claim dismissed.
11 Mar 2022

R v HEREMAIA [2022] NZHC 443

Citation

[2022] NZHC 443
Court

High Court

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter and, on the evidence, participated in a sustained and brutal group assault but in a less dominant role than co-offender Rafferty; there was insufficient forensic basis to safely infer he used or was aware of knife use; a nine-year starting point appropriate for his culpability was reduced by a 25% global personal factor discount (blindness, cognitive impairment, serious illness) and a two-month discount for restrictive bail conditions, producing a final sentence of six years and seven months' imprisonment.
7 Dec 2021

CRAIG v R [2021] NZHC 3338

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3338
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence; he engaged with the critical issues, permissibly preferred the complainant's consistent core account, correctly treated speculative drug and DNA arguments as irrelevant or inconclusive, and the inconsistencies and lack of visible medical injury did not create a real risk of wrongful conviction; accordingly no miscarriage of justice and the appeals were dismissed.
2 Aug 2021

SAMUELS v R [2021] NZCA 358

Citation

[2021] NZCA 358
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined new evidence (Wilson/Hikaka) as not credible or cogent; concluded playing the dairy robbery video and admitting T's police DVD were mistakes in form but not so prejudicial as to render the trial unfair; held s 103 direction and other evidential decisions, the prosecutor's challenged remarks and the jury directions did not produce a miscarriage of justice; consequently conviction and sentence (life with 17-year MPI under s 104) were upheld.
25 Mar 2021

FOSTER v R [2021] NZCA 90

Citation

[2021] NZCA 90
Court

Court of Appeal

Although two discrete rulings were erroneous (prohibiting cross‑examination about a specific post‑incident remark and limiting cross‑examination on a job‑sheet passage), when assessed against the whole trial record the errors did not create a real risk of a different verdict nor render the trial unfair; statutory bars on defendant hearsay (s21 Evidence Act) and the high threshold for admitting evidence of complainant sexual experience (s44 Evidence Act) were correctly applied; other challenged matters (DNA witness intervention, CCTV/screen decisions, prosecutorial language, evidence of callin…
7 Oct 2020

ASHER PRADEEPKUMAR RATNAM v R [2020] NZSC 107

Citation

[2020] NZSC 107
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal had already considered the grounds and correctly concluded no substantial miscarriage of justice arose: prosecutorial remarks, while flawed in parts, did not occasion a miscarriage; the complainant's evidence, if accepted, supported the convictions and the acquittal-related scientific evidence explained the jury's reasonable doubt; and the DNA evidence lacked probative value and raised s 44 issues so was not a ground warranting a further appeal.
18 May 2020

EDWARD RAWIRI HERBERT v R [2020] NZSC 48

Citation

[2020] NZSC 48
Court

Supreme Court

The Court refused leave because the issues raised were factual applications of settled law, the Court of Appeal correctly held that the DNA/scientific evidence, together with the surrounding evidence, made an inference of penile penetration open to a properly directed jury, and no question of general or public importance or miscarriage of justice was shown.
28 Feb 2020

NORMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 336

Citation

[2020] NZHC 336
Court

High Court

Although fresh DNA evidence admitted on appeal supported the claimed familial relationship, the Court declined to make final adoption orders because the welfare and interests of the children would not be promoted: the children have a primary, loving caregiver and extended family in Ethiopia; the subsidiarity principle and international obligations weigh strongly in favour of them remaining in their country of origin where suitable family care exists; the applicants' motives were substantially educational and socioeconomic rather than to create a parental family unit; given the children's ages…