New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misdirection

Legal area

Court

5 May 2023

KURU v R [2023] NZCA 150

Citation

[2023] NZCA 150
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court (Collins and Muir JJ) held the jury's verdict was not unreasonable on the whole of the evidence including admissible circumstantial evidence and the experience‑based expert evidence of Detective Inspector Scott; the Detective's evidence was admissible and not unfairly prejudicial given clear judicial directions; and the trial Judge's directions on s 66(2) were lawful, so the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
19 Apr 2021

TRANTER v R [2021] NZCA 122

Citation

[2021] NZCA 122
Court

Court of Appeal

None of the applicant's arguments met the established, narrow recall threshold (Horowhenua/Uhrle); the matters advanced were either new grounds of appeal, immaterial to the convictions appealed, repetitious of prior unsuccessful arguments, or the proper subject of alternative remedies, and therefore the recall application was declined.
28 May 2020

CREIGHTON v R [2020] NZCA 193

Citation

[2020] NZCA 193
Court

Court of Appeal

The Judge did not misdirect the jury on s128A because the provision does not require proof of a specific causal link; the deletion of the video by the complainant did not render the trial unfair because the deleted footage could have supported either party and the jury was entitled to draw inferences without a specific directed presumption; no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Sept 2019

RANKIN v R [2019] NZCA 443

Citation

[2019] NZCA 443
Court

Court of Appeal

The judge's summing up fairly represented the expert's educative evidence, did not misapply s 127 or impermissibly link general research to the specific facts, and any departures from statutory wording were contextual and not prejudicial; therefore no real risk the verdicts were affected and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Apr 2018

WATERS v R [2018] NZCA 84

Citation

[2018] NZCA 84
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the judge should have briefly summarised the Crown and defence cases, the omission did not produce a miscarriage of justice given the case's simplicity, detailed question trails, comprehensive counsel submissions, and the fact that the complainant's erroneous remark was contradicted by the defendant's interview and evidence; Evidence Act s32 did not apply.
15 Dec 2017

C (CA216/2017) v R [2017] NZCA 601

Citation

[2017] NZCA 601
Court

Court of Appeal

The trial Judge's directions on propensity and motive to lie were adequate and complied with established authority (Mahomed); the Judge did not adopt the prosecutor's phrase 'defies belief' as her own and gave appropriate warnings against impermissible reasoning, so any alleged misdirection did not render the convictions unsafe; the appeal is dismissed.
26 Sept 2017

CYRUS CHRISTIAN (AKA WILLIAM JOHN TASSELL) v R [2017] NZSC 145

Citation

[2017] NZSC 145
Court

Supreme Court

The trial Judge erred by not directing the jury that the Crown must prove absence of consent and absence of a reasonable belief in consent; that failure caused a miscarriage of justice in relation to the two representative rape counts (counts 4 and 5) and those convictions are quashed and a retrial ordered; the conviction on the first count of rape (count 2) was upheld because, on the evidence, the error did not cause a miscarriage in respect of that specific count; trial judges must direct on all elements of sexual violation offences and s128A does not mandate a universal requirement of a po…
11 May 2017

ADAMSON v R [2017] NZCA 175

Citation

[2017] NZCA 175
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the judge misdirected the jury by focusing on belief about subsequent use of loan funds rather than belief at the time the document was used, that error did not cause a miscarriage of justice because the jury's verdict of guilty necessarily rested on a finding of dishonest use of the loan document which negated any claim of right; accordingly the conviction stands and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Oct 2016

GLEN EDWARD ROBERTS v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 2588

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2588
Court

High Court

The Court held that s 41(b) AFDA does not require a separate subjective intention to ill-treat beyond intention to perform the act and objective assessment that the act amounted to ill-treatment; s 73(1)(a) requires a deliberate act and knowledge of impropriety and an honest belief defence need only be directed if evidentially raised; convictions were upheld and sentence was reduced by removing the 12-month stay of seniority because that cumulative element made the overall sentence manifestly excessive.
5 May 2016

HUTCHINS V R [2016] NZCA 173

Citation

[2016] NZCA 173
Court

Court of Appeal

Any minor errors or less‑than‑ideal formulations in the trial Judge's summing‑up did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice when the directions are read as a whole; the jury could properly apply the correct legal standards on burden, reasonable doubt and inferences, the defence case was sufficiently identified, and the seven year sentence fell within the appropriate band and was not manifestly excessive.