New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial summing up

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2022

DEMARCO v R [2022] NZCA 145

Citation

[2022] NZCA 145
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment was declined because the Court found the abandonment was both deliberate and informed, motivated by a strategic aim to secure parole which would undermine the integrity of the parole process and public interest in finality, no exceptional circumstances existed to justify setting it aside, and the proposed grounds of appeal did not disclose a real risk of miscarriage.
11 Jul 2019

BARTRAM v R [2019] NZCA 305

Citation

[2019] NZCA 305
Court

Court of Appeal

No miscarriage of justice was shown: defence counsel made a competent tactical decision to permit the witness to give damaging evidence, Crown re-examination added nothing material, the jury were adequately directed and able to assess the witness's motive and credibility, and the sentence was within the appropriate range and not disproportionate or lacking justified parity; therefore both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
23 Aug 2018

TE RUKI AND TAMOU v R [2018] NZCA 319

Citation

[2018] NZCA 319
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the jury verdict against Tamou was reasonable because evidence supported an inference he arranged the victim's attendance and remained present during the assault; no miscarriage of justice arose from the prosecutor's witness decisions, the trial judge's management of a difficult witness, or the summing‑up (the one misstated fact was corrected); on sentencing the judge properly assessed co‑offender culpability in the organised gang context and reasonably accounted for time on electronically‑monitored bail, so the sentences and discounts were appropriate. Appeals dismissed.
3 Nov 2015

JEREMY GEORGE EDWARD MCLAUGHLIN v R [2015] NZSC 164

Citation

[2015] NZSC 164
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal refused because the judge was not required to give the specific DNA direction advanced by the applicant, any alleged lies misdirection was immaterial in the context of the compelling Crown case, s32 did not apply to the lies complained of, and on the evidence the guilty verdict was the only reasonably possible verdict.

New Zealand Case Law

DEMARCO v R [2022] NZCA 145

BARTRAM v R [2019] NZCA 305

TE RUKI AND TAMOU v R [2018] NZCA 319

JEREMY GEORGE EDWARD MCLAUGHLIN v R [2015] NZSC 164