New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leading questions

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2022

SMITH v R [2022] NZCA 448

Citation

[2022] NZCA 448
Court

Court of Appeal

Although some leading questions and repetition of the EVI occurred, they mainly functioned as permissible signposting to clarify retractions and inconsistencies and were followed by open questions; the questioning did not create a real risk of an unsafe verdict. Trial counsel properly prepared the defence, explained the pros and cons of giving evidence and obtained informed instructions from the appellant; there was no counsel error causing a miscarriage of justice. Fresh evidence was admitted but did not alter outcome; the appeal is dismissed.
4 Oct 2021

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v RAE [2021] NZHC 2629

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2629
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine H was refused because the court found, on the substance of the evidence, a clear mutuality of interest and evidence of communication between H and the respondent's agent indicating alignment; however, the respondent was permitted to ask questions of H of the type used when leading one's own witness provided they are not leading, with the judge to intervene if questions become leading.
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.
8 Mar 2017

DIANNE COLLEEN KEMP v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 110

Citation

[2017] NZHC 110
Court

High Court

The Justices of the Peace improperly excluded relevant and admissible evidence (damages report and photographs) without a proper basis, thereby depriving the defendant of a fundamental trial right and creating a real risk of miscarriage of justice; accordingly leave to a second appeal was granted, the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.
5 Apr 2016

CLARKE v R [2016] NZCA 91

Citation

[2016] NZCA 91
Court

Court of Appeal

Question about frequency was justified by prior unprompted evidence and not improperly leading; directions on consent and reasonable belief were adequate in context and additional directions would risk undermining the primary denial defence; suggestion of motive to lie was peripheral and did not shift the burden of proof; complainant's evidence sufficed to support the representative charge; sentencing was well within range and discounts were appropriately applied; accordingly appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.
26 Apr 2013

HANNIGAN v R SC 20/2012

Citation

HANNIGAN v R SC 20/2012
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the Crown to elicit and explore a prior inconsistent statement in re-examination in the circumstances: where the prior statement was independently admissible as to facts in issue under the Evidence Act and the questioning was permitted under the judge's s89 discretion as clarification/scene-setting rather than impermissible cross-examination, a prior s94 determination of hostility was not required; likewise s37(4)(b) permits offering evidence as to facts in issue contrary to a witness's evidence without prior hostility determ…
23 Nov 2010

BOND V R SC 91/2010

Citation

SC 91/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the interview question was not leading was unassailable, the applicant's broader best‑practice contention was not raised earlier and could not sensibly be explored for the first time in the Supreme Court, and the proposed appeal did not raise any matter of general or public importance nor show an appearance of miscarriage of justice.

New Zealand Case Law

SMITH v R [2022] NZCA 448

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v RAE [2021] NZHC 2629

BARTRAM v R [2019] NZCA 305

DIANNE COLLEEN KEMP v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 110

CLARKE v R [2016] NZCA 91

HANNIGAN v R SC 20/2012

BOND V R SC 91/2010