New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recent complaint evidence

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2017

K (CA477/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 425

Citation

[2017] NZCA 425
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time to file the notice of appeal was granted; on the merits the Court held there was sufficient evidence to support conviction on the representative rape charge, the mixed pattern of convictions and acquittals was rational and not fundamentally inconsistent, the representative charge period was appropriate for multiple similar offences over a relationship, the recent complaint evidence was admissible to rebut fabrication, and accordingly the appeal was dismissed; a publication prohibition under s200 was ordered.
9 Dec 2016

CARSELDINE v R [2016] NZCA 573

Citation

[2016] NZCA 573
Court

Court of Appeal

No reversible error was shown: the trial Judge was not required to give a special direction on prior consistent statements given their obvious functions here (part of the narrative and rebuttal of veracity attack), and although references to sex stories should have been excised as irrelevant, their presence was not prejudicial in context; strong corroborative evidence (immediate complaint and DNA results) meant no miscarriage of justice occurred.
17 Nov 2014

MICHALIK v R CA315/2014 [2014] NZCA 553

Citation

[2014] NZCA 553
Court

Court of Appeal

The judge's answers and directions were correct: there was no evidential basis that the complainant was mistaken about identity so it would have been improper to invite speculative inferences about reasonable belief; recent complaint evidence was properly admitted and described; the judge properly criticised defence counsel where counsel advanced factual assertions about alcohol effects without expert evidence; extension of time was granted but the appeal was dismissed.
26 May 2009

CLIVE ALLAN PETRIE V DISTRICT COURT AT NELSON AND ANOR HC NEL CIV 2009-442-46

Citation

openlaw-ef00759e_2138_43f8_942d_2722f80dd20e.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's refusal to stay: extreme delay alone does not mandate a presumption of irrebuttable prejudice; the proper approach is to examine all circumstances including specificity and mutual support of complainants' accounts and the strength of the Crown case; on the facts a fair trial remained possible and there was no substantial error or abuse of process in refusing the stay.
17 Dec 2004

R V SUNGSUWAN SC SC CRI 11/2004

Citation

openlaw-5dc1bc53_b4af_40ff_9234_5ad99426a32b.pdf
Court

Supreme Court

The Court granted leave because the grounds identified raise arguable and substantive errors in the Court of Appeal's application of the test for counsel error and miscarriage of justice, its handling of the Crown prosecutor's closing address regarding witnesses 'Nui' and 'Jai', and its conclusions about recent complaint evidence affecting the appellant's right to cross-examine.

New Zealand Case Law

K (CA477/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 425

CARSELDINE v R [2016] NZCA 573

MICHALIK v R CA315/2014 [2014] NZCA 553

CLIVE ALLAN PETRIE V DISTRICT COURT AT NELSON AND ANOR HC NEL CIV 2009-442-46

R V SUNGSUWAN SC SC CRI 11/2004