14 Dec 2023
The application to admit further evidence was declined because the affidavit was neither sufficiently fresh nor cogent and would not cause a miscarriage of justice; the guilty plea was held to have been entered voluntarily and with informed appreciation of the case and consequences, and therefore the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
12 Dec 2023
Given the low-to-medium gravity of the assault, the material change of circumstances (quashing and acquittal on the more serious charges), admission of fresh evidence, and the realistic and appreciable risk that a conviction would significantly impair the appellant's prospects of returning to New Zealand and seeing his daughter, the Court held the direct and indirect consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence under s 107 and therefore quashed the conviction and discharged the appellant without conviction under s 106.
20 Nov 2023
The extension of time was refused because the applicant, an experienced litigant, failed to comply with fundamental procedural requirements (notably absence of any supporting affidavit), provided no reasonable explanation for the omission, and the proposed second appeal related predominantly to factual issues that lacked sufficient importance or prospect of bona fide and serious argument to justify further appeal and the attendant cost and delay.
6 Nov 2023
The Court declined to exclude the expert reports because, at this interlocutory stage, they are potentially relevant and may be substantially helpful under s25 and s7 in assessing contamination risk; issues of freshness and cogency are matters for the substantive appeal panel, but the appellant must file an affidavit complying with r12B by 1 December 2023 and the Crown may renew its exclusion application at the appeal.
11 Oct 2023
The Court refused leave to adduce further evidence because the material sought to be admitted merely relitigated factual matters already considered and was neither fresh nor cogent; recusal was refused because the applicant's allegations were unsupported, speculative and did not meet the Saxmere threshold for disqualification; recall was refused because the applicant failed to identify exceptional circumstances or any procedural or substantive error causing a miscarriage of justice, and the application impermissibly sought to relitigate the leave decision.
29 Sept 2023
The Court rejected admission of the proposed fresh evidence because Ms A’s account was internally inconsistent and lacked credibility and Ms C’s evidence was not fresh or material; neither affidavit created a real risk of a different verdict and the jury’s guilty verdicts were reasonable on the evidence presented, so leave to adduce fresh evidence was declined and the appeal dismissed.
29 Sept 2023
The Court held the neuropsychological evidence (FASD/ADHD) was admissible for sentencing purposes but not cogent to have altered the jury's verdicts because the complainant's evidence of non-consent on the key incidents was clear and the expert evidence did not provide a credible narrative that would render an honest belief in consent objectively reasonable; trial directions on consent and propensity were legally adequate and counsel error was harmless; on sentencing the fresh expert evidence changed the risk and rehabilitation assessment such that preventive detention was not the least restr…
14 Sept 2023
No miscarriage of justice was established: joint representation and counsel choices did not render trials unfair; associated defendant compellability prevented compelling co-defendant evidence; guilty pleas were voluntary and informed; sentencing Judge correctly applied Zhang and assessed roles; Berkland refinements to role descriptions considered but did not alter findings that Wong was a leader; minimum period imposed on Wong was unnecessary and set aside; all other convictions and sentences affirmed.
7 Sept 2023
The appeal was allowed because a miscarriage of the sentencing process occurred: an application for discharge without conviction was never advanced through no fault of the appellant, effective representation was lacking at sentencing, and credible fresh evidence was now available that created a real possibility a different outcome would have occurred; accordingly the convictions were set aside and the matter remitted to the District Court for full reconsideration with the benefit of the fresh evidence.
5 Sept 2023
The recall application was struck out as an abuse of process under r7.42A/r15.1 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction because the affidavits relied upon were neither fresh nor relevant to the prior strike-out judgment, the application sought effectively to relitigate final criminal convictions and to press a collateral settlement agenda, and there was no proper basis to recall Priestley J's decision.