New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to a fair trial

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2019

R v LE BRETON [2019] NZHC 3016

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3016
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal under s 215 was granted and the appeal allowed: because the loss of the note involved no bad faith, and because the original note would not probably have been of real benefit to the defence (could not explain the unexplained counter fingerprint, other-fingerprint theories could be advanced without the original, and handwriting analysis was not shown to require the original), exclusion was disproportionate and the fingerprint evidence is admissible.
19 May 2016

ANTHONY PAUL MOUNT v R [2016] NZSC 56

Citation

[2016] NZSC 56
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice: the evidence against the applicant was overwhelming, the Court of Appeal correctly found the trial fair despite procedural shortcomings including likely absence of a s 364 warning, and the applicant failed to demonstrate what evidence he would have given or any resulting prejudice.
2 Jun 2011

ELLIS v R SC 53/2011

Citation

SC 53/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the jury was selected in accordance with the Juries Act 1981 and no unfairness or discriminatory effect was demonstrated; statutory compliance and the absence of a plausible alternative interpretation meant the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and ICCPR arguments could not succeed.
19 Jun 2009

K V R SC 33/2009

Citation

SC 33/2009
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal is dismissed because the circumstances did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice: the late material was inadmissible, there was no evidence the applicant intended to give oral evidence beyond producing documents, the judge took appropriate steps (including adjournment and obtaining replacement counsel) and no specific prejudice was shown.
21 Mar 2007

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NZ V DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001506

Citation

openlaw-15de0adf_8d5a_4f23_a270_a61a57881328.pdf
Court

High Court

On a de novo assessment applying the two-stage test in R v The Queen and related authorities, the High Court found that specific prejudice arose from a long unexplained delay, the loss/unavailability of contemporaneous police, medical and counselling records and witnesses, and the accused's drug-related memory impairment; those factors together jeopardised the second respondent's right to a fair trial and justified a stay and discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961, so the application for judicial review was refused and the discharge upheld.

New Zealand Case Law

R v LE BRETON [2019] NZHC 3016

ANTHONY PAUL MOUNT v R [2016] NZSC 56

ELLIS v R SC 53/2011

K V R SC 33/2009

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NZ V DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001506