New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder and severance

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2023

KEREMETE v R [2023] NZCA 105

Citation

[2023] NZCA 105
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the joinder and cross-admissibility rulings were lawful because the allegations were sufficiently similar and interconnected (including unusual sexual violence) to make the evidence highly probative and not unfairly prejudicial; the trial judge's propensity directions were adequate; prior convictions and call-out evidence were properly used and did not render the trial unfair; claimed failures by counsel did not create a real risk of an unsafe verdict. Therefore the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
27 Mar 2019

R v VEA, COOPER AND SEAL [2019] NZHC 598

Citation

[2019] NZHC 598
Court

High Court

Joinder was appropriate because the charges against Vea and the Operation Grandeur charges share sufficient commonality and cross-admissible evidence so that the probative value of hearing them together outweighs any prejudice; severance under s 138(4) was refused because potential prejudice to co-defendants could be managed by directions and the efficient, fair disposal of all related charges favored a joint trial.
12 Mar 2019

HOBSON v R [2019] NZCA 44

Citation

[2019] NZCA 44
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the admitted photo did not prejudice Hobson, joinder was appropriate, the judge's directions on the elements of aggravated robbery and on timing of knowledge were legally sound, there was ample evidence to permit the jury to draw the Crown's inferences including admissions under cross‑examination, and the lies direction complied with s 124(3) Evidence Act 2006.
30 Apr 2018

SPARKS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 872

Citation

[2018] NZHC 872
Court

High Court

The High Court held the trial judge did not err: the proven Mitchelli's burglary produced propensity evidence with sufficient probative weight, and when combined with the Facebook photograph (corroborative, not conclusive) established guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Animates; the striking similarities in method, timing and unusual modus operandi alone were sufficiently probative to convict on Coupland's. The admission of propensity evidence did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
13 Dec 2017

DC (CA431/2016) V R [2017] NZCA 591

Citation

[2017] NZCA 591
Court

Court of Appeal

Joinder was appropriate given the interfamilial and interconnected nature of the allegations and the parties' collective defence; the trial judge gave adequate directions to guard against impermissible reasoning; MT's statements were equivocal and of limited prejudicial effect; JT's recantation raised credibility issues properly left to the jury; no miscarriage of justice was established and all appeals against conviction were dismissed; publication suppression orders were made for appellants and witness W.
4 Apr 2017

R (CA602/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 107

Citation

[2017] NZCA 107
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Palmerston North and Wellington allegations were cross‑admissible as propensity evidence because their similarities produced high probative value that outweighed the risk of prejudice, so refusal to sever and to grant a mistrial was correct; the disclosure delay did not make the trial unfair.
27 Jun 2016

JOBLIN V R [2016] NZCA 287

Citation

[2016] NZCA 287
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Court found no counsel conduct that caused a miscarriage of justice: both Norcross and Eason acted reasonably and took appropriate steps given the appellant's conduct and instructions; no substantiated legal error was advanced against the admission of propensity evidence; the trial Judge's directions on delay satisfied s122 requirements in context and any shortfall caused no prejudice sufficient to render the verdict unsafe.
28 Sept 2006

ANDERSON V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2005-404-5589

Citation

openlaw-4593a270_bc91_48c9_bbeb_7511b73d7511.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to sever the causes of action: the judicial review claim against the Commissioner will proceed separately because the issues and evidence differ materially from the negligence claim against the second defendant; paragraphs 63-66 (the second cause) were struck out to lie in court until 1 November 2006 to enable the plaintiff to bring a separate proceeding against Mr Rogers, and specific case management directions and timetable were imposed for the remaining judicial review proceeding.