New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Party liability

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2023

GIBSON-PARK v R [2023] NZCA 615

Citation

[2023] NZCA 615
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because alleged counsel errors and trial Judge directions, individually and collectively, did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice: the jury were properly instructed, inadmissible co-defendant statements were clearly ring-fenced and isolated, a s122 warning was discretionary and not required on these facts, and the late alibi rebuttal was admissible due to the witness' unavailability and s98 criteria being met; accordingly convictions and sentences were upheld.
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.
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.
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.
13 Oct 2022

R v KAYLEB RENATA & ANOR [2022] NZHC 2745

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2745
Court

High Court

For Renata the statutory presumption of life imprisonment was not displaced; life imprisonment imposed with MPI fixed at statutory minimum of 10 years, balancing extreme gravity (sustained stabbing to a vulnerable victim by multiple attackers) against youth and adverse upbringing. For Tutakangahau, his role as instigator/leader and sustained gratuitous violence placed him mid-range of Taueki band two; starting point 6.5 years reduced by 15% for personal mitigation to 5.5 years, resulting in an imposed sentence of 5 years 6 months with standard non-parole provisions (no life / no MPI).
13 Oct 2022

R v MOSES [2022] NZHC 2627

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2627
Court

High Court

The Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that both defendants knowingly joined and assisted a common unlawful purpose to discharge firearms at properties associated with a rival gang; they were parties under s66(1)(b) and s66(2) and therefore guilty of intentional damage at Otara Road, Capstick Road and Pearl Baker Drive and guilty of participation in an organised criminal group under s98A; insufficient evidence linked them to the Blampied Road aggravated burglary so acquitted on that charge.
7 Sept 2022

LITIA ROKELE VUNIDUVU v R [2022] NZCA 420

Citation

[2022] NZCA 420
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because party liability was squarely before the jury via the charge notice and trial materials, the accused accepted the invoices were used so omission to define 'use' caused no prejudice, the jury was correctly directed on dishonesty and the requisite knowledge and intent for assistance/encouragement, the non-disclosure of hard drives was an honest oversight that contained nothing materially helpful to the defence, and the immigration and tax material were relevant and not unduly prejudicial; the evidence sufficed to support guilty verdicts.
8 Dec 2021

R v SCHWAAB & MACKAY [2021] NZHC 3360

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3360
Court

High Court

Court found the offending analogous to Taueki band two: the shooting involved extreme violence and significant firearm aggravation though premeditation was present only to a low degree; Schwaab as principal received a higher starting point (8 years 3 months) and MacKay a lower starting point (6 years); recognised mitigation (15% for background and 5% remorse for each defendant) and a 4 month EM bail credit for MacKay; unlawful possession sentences ordered concurrent; final sentences: Schwaab 6 years 7 months imprisonment for attempted murder (plus concurrent 3 months for possession), MacKay 4…
2 Aug 2021

SAMUELS v R [2021] NZCA 358

Citation

[2021] NZCA 358
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined new evidence (Wilson/Hikaka) as not credible or cogent; concluded playing the dairy robbery video and admitting T's police DVD were mistakes in form but not so prejudicial as to render the trial unfair; held s 103 direction and other evidential decisions, the prosecutor's challenged remarks and the jury directions did not produce a miscarriage of justice; consequently conviction and sentence (life with 17-year MPI under s 104) were upheld.
28 Jul 2021

R v AUDAIN [2021] NZHC 2367

Citation

R v AUDAIN [2021] NZHC 2367
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's passive but participatory role in a violent taxing leading to death, the appropriate starting point is eight years' imprisonment; an uplift of four months is required for attempting to pervert the course of justice; discounts totalling 25% (15% guilty plea, ~10% remorse/rehabilitation) reduce the sentence to six years three months; the 18 month sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice orders is to be served concurrently; the defendant's vehicle is confiscated under s128.