New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recent invention

Legal area

Court

23 May 2016

SEEKKU ARACHCHIGE v R [2016] NZCA 218

Citation

[2016] NZCA 218
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because (1) the summing-up did not invite an impermissible credibility contest and contained orthodox directions on onus and standard of proof, (2) the evidence of a prior incident was admissible propensity evidence under s40(1)(a) and posed no unfair prejudice, and (3) the complainant's near-contemporaneous account to her husband was admissible under s35(2) as necessary to meet a recent invention/veracity challenge given its timing and emotional context.
17 Dec 2010

R v B(SC88/2010) SC 88/2010

Citation

SC 88/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the Crown appeal and reinstated the District Court ruling: s 35(2) applies where the defence will put the complainant's evidence as a recent invention and the police interview of the accused will be before the jury, so the complainant may give evidence of prior consistent statements (complaints to others) as a necessary response; the timing of the initial challenge (pre-charge) does not defeat s 35(2), and editing the police interview to remove assertions of recent invention would be misleading.
23 Jul 2010

HART V R SC 74/2009

Citation

HART V R SC 74/2009
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held the prior consistent statement to a third party was admissible under s35(2) because the cross-examination amounted to a challenge of recent invention and the statement was necessary to respond to that challenge; s35(2) does not rigidly require the prior statement to predate the alleged invention and, once admitted under s35(2), the statement is admissible for all purposes including as evidence tending to prove the truth of its contents; the trial judge's summing-up error was favourable to the appellant and caused no miscarriage of justice.
27 Nov 2009

RONGONUI V R SC 66/2009

Citation

RONGONUI V R SC 66/2009
Court

Supreme Court

The appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered because the Crown was permitted to lead a prosecution witness through a prior written statement without adequate compliance with s90(5) (freshness) and without a proper ruling on hostility or lawful exercise of discretion under s89, producing a prejudicial procedure amounting to a miscarriage of justice; although the complainant's contemporaneous statement to friends raised complex s35 issues, that point did not prevent allowing the appeal on the second ground.

New Zealand Case Law

SEEKKU ARACHCHIGE v R [2016] NZCA 218

R v B(SC88/2010) SC 88/2010

HART V R SC 74/2009

RONGONUI V R SC 66/2009