New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jury trial

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2021

PAUL MALCOLM JOHNSON v R [2021] NZSC 176

Citation

[2021] NZSC 176
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly found there was no real risk the verdict was affected: the complainant's evidence was recognition rather than contested identification, the montage process was careful, the tattoo's lateral placement made no material difference to front-on photos, the complainant's failure to mention the tattoo was explicable by circumstances, and corroborative palm print evidence removed any real risk of miscarriage of justice.
17 Nov 2020

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2961

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2961
Court

High Court

Judge held that ordinary r 1.19 principles apply to jury notices in defamation cases; the defendants' delay was technical because pleadings were effectively at large due to a pending meanings appeal, their delay was excusable for specified reasons, the plaintiff did not suffer relevant prejudice, and on balance an extension was justified; leave to appeal was granted only in part on limited arguable grounds.
20 Jun 2018

HARVEY v MEDIAWORKS HOLDINGS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1414

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1414
Court

High Court

Associate Judge Johnston refused the defendant's application for a judge-alone trial because the case did not principally involve difficult questions of law and the plaintiff had validly exercised the s16 election for trial by jury; the application to transfer to the District Court was dismissed because the plaintiff's counsel opened the case on the basis that damages exceed $350,000 and s43(1) prevents pleadings of quantum, so transfer would defeat the plaintiff's entitlement and the District Court's jurisdictional limit.
20 Oct 2017

FITZGERALD v R [2017] NZCA 479

Citation

[2017] NZCA 479
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave to adduce the fresh affidavits because the alleged retraction evidence lacked credibility and would not affect the safety of the convictions; there was no established loss of exculpatory Facebook material that caused prejudice given existing messages were before the jury (including admissions that V2 had said she was lying); and trial counsel's conduct was professionally competent with sound tactical reasons for disclosure decisions and for not calling W1 and W2. Accordingly the convictions and sentence were upheld.
12 Apr 2017

0318029a-e00d-4e50-a86c-2ae9ccccbdef.pdf

Citation

openlaw-b016a22a_f2f8_453a_8b27_9e48f742b88c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Judge ordered trial before a Judge without a jury because the defendants' qualified privilege defences raise difficult mixed questions of law and fact that would complicate and blur the functions of judge and jury (s19A(5)(a)) and the case involves prolonged and extensive examination of documents and complex factual issues (common bundle >1500 pages; lengthy question trail) that cannot conveniently be dealt with by a jury (s19A(5)(b)), and on balance a judge alone trial is in the interests of justice.
9 Jul 2014

STEPHENSON v JONES [2014] NZHC 1604

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

The defendant's strike out application was dismissed because, applying the established High Court and appellate tests, the words complained of were not so incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning (that the plaintiff 'lied') that a jury would be perverse to find that meaning; the earlier trial ruling did not create issue estoppel preventing re-litigation at retrial, and leave under r 7.52 was justified given the circumstances of the prior trial.
20 Oct 2009

PORTER AND ORS V R SC 85/2009

Citation

SC 85/2009
Court

Supreme Court

When a judge properly applies the specific statutory criteria in s361D and is satisfied those criteria are met, the limitation on the right to jury is a justified limitation and no separate s5 justificatory step is required; concurrent conclusions of the trial judge and Court of Appeal that s361D applied cannot be impugned here and do not merit leave to appeal.
30 Mar 2009

GREGORY V GOLLAN AND ORS SC 4/2009

Citation

SC 4/2009
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the matter of jury trials in civil proceedings is governed by s 19A, the courts below applied the correct principles and there was no error of principle warranting a second appeal from an exercise of discretion confirmed twice.
28 Feb 2008

SIEMER V KATE FARDELL EXECUTRIX FOR ROBERT FARDELL, DECEASED SC 93/2007

Citation

SC 93/2007
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003: the issue did not raise a question of general or public importance, there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice, and the High Court had made an orthodox exercise of discretion on the mode of trial; authority (Williams v Beesley) rejects bias-based challenges to mode of trial.
5 Oct 2006

ALLAHYAI V R SC 47/2006

Citation

SC 47/2006
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly applied settled principles in refusing the fresh evidence as lacking cogency, the remaining grounds were either strategic/tactical decisions by experienced counsel or did not show prejudicial error, and nothing established a real risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting this Court's intervention.