New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jury unanimity

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2023

SIGNAL v R [2023] NZCA 459

Citation

[2023] NZCA 459
Court

Court of Appeal

Court held there was no sufficient basis to order polling or to admit juror post‑verdict assertions under s76 because the material did not meet the high threshold for inquiry into jury deliberations; however the conviction for participation in an organised criminal group (s98A) overlapped completely with party liability convictions and therefore was quashed and a judgment of acquittal ordered under s233(3)(a) Criminal Procedure Act; the manslaughter misdirection issue was reserved pending the Supreme Court decision in Burke v R.
22 Feb 2023

FANE v R [2023] NZCA 26

Citation

[2023] NZCA 26
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of both murders either as a participant in a common purpose and/or by his assistance and involvement (including use/possession of the shotgun and concerted action with his brother), the trial Judge's directions (including on party liability, unanimity and standard of proof) were adequate and not prejudicial, and the life sentences with a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment were appropriate and not manifestly unjust.
22 Mar 2021

HUNTER v R [2021] NZCA 75

Citation

[2021] NZCA 75
Court

Court of Appeal

Where items charged together were logically connected as property stolen in the same transactions from the same owners, s17 was not breached; the summing‑up and question trail sufficiently required juror agreement on essential elements and did not give rise to a realistic risk of inconsistent reasoning; fresh evidence was inadmissible because it was not fresh or cogent; trial counsel was not ineffective; return of tools and photographic evidence did not render convictions unsafe.
27 Nov 2020

ANDREWS v R [2020] NZCA 599

Citation

[2020] NZCA 599
Court

Court of Appeal

Conviction appeal dismissed: the jury, having seen and heard the complainant's evidential interview, could reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to digital and penile penetration and there was no realistic risk of non-unanimity on the representative rape charge given the judge's directions and the evidence; Crown appeal on sentence allowed: the trial judge erred in placing offending in R v AM band 2 instead of band 3, the proper starting point was 12 years, and after a six‑month credit for good character the substituted sentence for charge 6 is 11 years 6 months to be served conc…
5 Nov 2019

HOHUA v R [2019] NZCA 533

Citation

[2019] NZCA 533
Court

Court of Appeal

The conviction was upheld because the pathologist attributed death to multiple blunt force traumas so the jury reasonably inferred murderous intent from the cumulative, sustained, and violent assault; unanimity as to the specific form of murderous intent was not required in this single-transaction killing; alleged prosecutorial misconduct and media coverage did not cause miscarriage; and the s27 cultural report, while admitted, did not establish that the 17-year minimum non-parole period was manifestly unjust.
6 Sept 2019

MANU v R [2019] NZCA 415

Citation

[2019] NZCA 415
Court

Court of Appeal

The trial Judge did not miscarry in giving the Papadopoulos direction; he acted within his discretion after substantial deliberation by the jury, nothing in the jury notes or circumstances indicated true deadlock or trend to acquittal, and the jury's final note showed they had almost reached a decision before the direction, so the direction did not render the verdict unsafe.
2 Nov 2018

MUNN v R [2018] NZCA 473

Citation

[2018] NZCA 473
Court

Court of Appeal

The statutory charge of sexual violation sufficiently informed the defendant of the essential elements; further particulars were unnecessary and precluded by lack of evidence as to the precise means of penetration; where alternatives are modes of a single act unanimity on the exact mode is unnecessary so long as the jury unanimously find the defendant penetrated the complainant; the forensic and interview evidence were relevant and admissible; no miscarriage of justice was shown and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Aug 2017

VILIAMI ONE FUNGAVAKA v R [2017] NZSC 119

Citation

[2017] NZSC 119
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show any real risk of miscarriage: he was adequately informed of the charge despite no separate counts for each impact; the late pathologist statement did not prejudice the defence given the original opinion and the defence case of accident; and leaving manslaughter did not create a miscarriage or raise a matter of public importance.
18 Oct 2016

ZACHARIUS RAKENA v R [2016] NZSC 137

Citation

[2016] NZSC 137
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and the trial judge's conduct of the jury (including the decision not to discharge, the Papadopoulos direction, and the decision not to re‑poll) did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice.
30 Oct 2014

JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014]

Citation

[2014] NZSC 153
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the murder convictions and ordered new trials because the trial Judge's summing up inadequately explained the essential elements of party liability under s 66(1) and s 66(2), failed properly to link law to evidence for each appellant (including insufficient directions on withdrawal for Rameka and insufficient treatment of withdrawal under s 66(1) for Ahsin), and failed to ensure jury unanimity safeguards where required by materially different factual bases of liability.