New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prosecutorial misconduct

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2023

BUTTLE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2023] NZHC 2279

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2279
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the judicial review application because the threshold for intervention was not met: WorkSafe's conduct did not amount to systemic or bad‑faith prosecutorial misconduct nor create irremediable prejudice that cannot be remedied on appeal, and the matters raised (including whether charges were saved by the summary of facts and subsequent amendment) are properly addressed within the statutory appellate scheme or at trial.
16 Mar 2022

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v PARORE [2022] NZHC 488

Citation

[2022] NZHC 488
Court

High Court

The application under s89L(1B) was declined because the circumstances relied on were not a qualifying exceptional event beyond the Commissioner's control and, even if they were, they did not provide reasonable justification for delay; the delays were largely within the Commissioner's control and the Court would not exercise its residual discretion to grant the extension.
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.
19 Apr 2021

WETERE v R [2021] NZCA 119

Citation

[2021] NZCA 119
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: given the complainant was asleep at first penetration s128A(3) precluded consent and there were no reasonable grounds for the appellant to believe in consent; absence of protest could not by itself support reasonable belief under s128A(1) and prior unprotested acts did not create reasonable grounds for subsequent acts; the Crown's invitation to 'put yourself in her shoes' was legitimate response to the defence and, coupled with the judge's dispassionate directions and lack of objection, did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
18 Dec 2020

SMITH v R [2020] NZCA 659

Citation

[2020] NZCA 659
Court

Court of Appeal

The prosecutor's comments did not amount to impermissible conduct and were proper contextual submissions about credibility and use of the defendant's police interview; trial counsel was properly prepared, advised the appellant who freely elected not to give evidence, and no miscarriage of justice occurred; the Judge's assessment of culpability factors (planning/premeditation, extreme victim vulnerability due to age and intoxication, multiple sexual violations and harm) justified a nine year starting point for the rape, and the overall ten year sentence was appropriate and upheld.
26 Jun 2019

R (CA379/2018) v R [2019] NZCA 255

Citation

[2019] NZCA 255
Court

Court of Appeal

The stepdaughter's evidence was properly admitted as propensity evidence because similarities (young age, paternal relationship, timing overlap, photography) gave it significant probative force that outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice; the trial judge's directions, read as a whole, adequately explained the legitimate use of that evidence and addressed collusion and prejudice; the prosecutor's closing remarks were inappropriate but did not cause a real risk of prejudice or miscarriage of justice; accordingly the conviction is upheld and a publication prohibition under s 200 Criminal Proced…
9 Jun 2017

HAMDI v R [2017] NZCA 242

Citation

(2017) 28 CRNZ 319
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing invited an adverse inference from the appellant's limited pre-trial remark and thus breached s 32 Evidence Act 2006, the trial judge's unequivocal directions to the jury, together with the defence closing, sufficiently cured any prejudice so that no miscarriage of justice occurred; alleged trial counsel shortcomings likewise did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
29 Mar 2017

HENRY v R [2017] NZCA 92

Citation

[2017] NZCA 92
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Crown's use of defence‑led evidence did not invite illegitimate use and did not require additional tailored directions, the trial judge's general directions on demeanour and credibility were adequate and avoided conveying judicial views, prosecutorial excesses did not cumulatively raise a real risk of miscarriage, and the sentence including a 50% MPI was within the correct band given aggravating factors and the offender's history.
23 Nov 2016

CASSIDY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZCA 549

Citation

[2016] NZCA 549
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the applicant failed to meet the high s 237 threshold: the formal visual identification was not shown to be unreliable, the Crown case was strong with corroborating evidence and inculpatory statements, and the prosecutorial conduct (intermittent display of arrest photographs) was not sufficiently serious to render the trial unfair or cause a miscarriage of justice.
20 Jul 2016

PAKAI & HARRISON V R [2016] NZCA 343

Citation

[2016] NZCA 343
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeals: the jury could reasonably reject self‑defence because no direct evidence supported the defendants' subjective beliefs at the fatal moment, prior gratuitous and reckless use of the firearm and other facts supported an inference the fatal shot was disproportionate or not defensive, the trial directions were adequate, prosecutorial remarks and evidential presentation did not cause miscarriage, the intercepted prison‑van communications were lawfully obtained under a properly issued surveillance device warrant, and the minimum period of imprisonment for Pakai was n…