New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Papadopoulos direction

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2020

STOLLERY v R [2020] NZCA 429

Citation

[2020] NZCA 429
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the jury was entitled to find the appellant intended to obtain a benefit as broadly defined by s 267(4) (seeking a transfer from Housing New Zealand) and, in any event, intended to cause loss to the owner; the trial judge's directions on unanimity and to continue deliberating were adequate and the absence of a Papadopoulos direction before the four‑hour threshold did not cause a miscarriage of justice; the sentencing starting point of 3 years 9 months was within the available range and, after mitigation, the imposed sentence of 3 years 6 months was not manifestly excessive.
30 Sept 2019

SHARMA v R [2019] NZCA 462

Citation

[2019] NZCA 462
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the verdicts were not unsafe because the jury could rationally distinguish between two separate episodes of sexual activity: evidence (flatmate's observation and appellant's account) could support reasonable belief in consent for earlier acts while complainant's firm denial, corroborated by medical injuries, justified guilty verdict for the later episode. The majority verdict direction was properly given and a Papadopoulos direction was not required; the juror's extraneous conduct did not establish a miscarriage of justice, therefore the conviction is safe and the appeal is dis…
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.
6 Dec 2017

STEVEN IHAKA SYLVA V R [2017] NZCA 567

Citation

[2017] NZCA 567
Court

Court of Appeal

Photographic identification was admissible and sufficiently reliable given prior acquaintance, proximity and corroborating detail; recall of the identification witness was lawful and non-prejudicial (trial counsel consented); the judge's answers to the jury were accurate and did not misstate the burden or convert identification into a fact of whereabouts; prosecutorial remarks were peripheral and did not cause miscarriage; a Papadopoulos direction was not required before a majority verdict direction in the circumstances; sentencing fell within the appropriate Mako range and the judge acted wi…
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.
27 Jul 2016

RAKENA v R [2016] NZCA 357

Citation

[2016] NZCA 357
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the circumstantial evidence (vehicle matching getaway car, discovery of matching track pants with the appellant's DNA, and his presence driving a similar vehicle) was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict, and that the trial judge was not required to poll the jury after the announced unanimous verdict because he had the foreman's written and oral assurances and observed no sign of dissent; accordingly no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal was dismissed.
20 May 2016

STEWART v R [2016] NZCA 217

Citation

[2016] NZCA 217
Court

Court of Appeal

The judge did not err in discharging the second juror because she properly exercised discretion having found a real risk the juror would be preoccupied and incapable of performing her duty; the majority and Papadopoulos directions given to the resulting jury of ten were appropriate and did not cause a miscarriage of justice; the five year aggregate starting point and four month guilty plea discount were within lawful sentencing range; and a MPI was justified by the seriousness of offending, high reoffending risk and need to protect the complainant and community.
7 Apr 2016

KAY v R [2016] NZCA 98

Citation

[2016] NZCA 98
Court

Court of Appeal

Viewed in context the abbreviated perseverance (Papadopoulos) direction was not inadequate or coercive; the jury's subsequent conduct showed no undue pressure; the s127 and s122 directions were adequate for the issues of delay and reliability; the pattern of convictions and acquittals was coherent with the evidence and ages of the complainant; no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal is dismissed (extension of time granted).
2 Mar 2010

WONG V R SC 96/2009

Citation

SC 96/2009
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal did not err in concluding there was no impropriety or unfairness: the jury note did not indicate actual bullying, the direction given was sufficient to meet the risk, there were no signs of coerced verdicts, and the extraneous focus group material was irrelevant.
9 Apr 2008

HOOKWAY V R SC 1/2008

Citation

SC 1/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held there is no basis to create an invariable rule requiring defence counsel to inform clients they may give instructions counsel must follow and that the giving of a Papadopoulos direction is a matter for trial judge discretion; because there was no real prospect of success on these points leave to appeal was dismissed.