27 Jul 2023
The trial judge reasonably accepted the constable's oral evidence that the solitary 'yes' entry on the electronic EBA form was a data‑entry error; the officer consistently recorded 'no' in the comments and promptly corrected his account when he realised the mistake, so the statutory offers of counsel occurred and no miscarriage of justice arose; the appeal is dismissed.
6 Mar 2023
The High Court held the trial judge erred in assessing contested oral evidence and in failing to permit relevant questioning, and that on a fair reading of the evidence (including appellant's limited English and repeated questions) the appellant had effectively requested a blood test within the statutory 10-minute period; those errors created a real risk the trial outcome was affected and therefore constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting quashing of the conviction and sentence.
8 Apr 2022
Detective's after‑care comments were unwise and risky but did not render the defendant's waiver of counsel ineffective nor causatively produce the admissions; the second interview was admissible; the trial judge's directions on proof beyond reasonable doubt and on the immunised witness were adequate and not misleading; the minimum periods and sentences were within the available range; no miscarriage of justice occurred and appeals dismissed.
12 Nov 2021
The appeal is dismissed because there was no miscarriage of justice: defence representation was not shown to be inadequate on the evidence available, the prosecution witnesses were found credible, refusal to adjourn was justified by extensive delay and the simplicity of the charge, and no material bias or sentencing error was demonstrated.
8 Nov 2021
The appeal is dismissed because the trial Judge correctly found the appellant was informed of and understood his s 23(1)(b) rights: a Mandarin-speaking officer translated the rights, the appellant attempted to call his own lawyer and refused the list of other lawyers, and his intoxication did not render him incapable of understanding such that police should have procured a Mandarin-speaking lawyer before proceeding with evidential testing.
14 Sept 2021
Statements admitted at interview were excluded under s 28 Evidence Act 2006 because, on the balance of probabilities, the circumstances in which they were made — principally the defendant's diagnosed foetal alcohol spectrum disorder producing marked suggestibility, confabulation and impaired recollection combined with the interview history and lack of reliable independent corroboration of his asserted participation — were likely to have adversely affected their reliability; s 29 oppression was not made out beyond reasonable doubt.
21 Dec 2020
On the whole of the evidence, including expert reports and the trial judge's observations, the appellant was fit to stand trial; there was no evidential foundation to leave insanity or sane automatism to the jury and the judge did not err in so ruling; appellant by his conduct forfeited his right to counsel and his exclusion did not render the trial unfair; the new psychiatric evidence admitted on appeal did not establish unfitness or insanity sufficient to overturn the convictions; the sentence of life with a minimum period of 27 years was not manifestly excessive and is affirmed.
2 Oct 2020
Leave was granted because the affidavit evidence given by Mr Pidgeon is not relevant to the issue on appeal, Mr Pidgeon provided binding undertakings to exclude his High Court affidavit from argument and not to act at High Court if the appeal succeeds, and his specialist expertise and familiarity with the file justify allowing him to act without breaching r 13.5.1 LCCCR.
22 Sept 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the court concluded it was expedient to determine the disputed NZBORA and admissibility issues in the context of the full judge-alone trial (and any subsequent appeal) where the factual and procedural record will be complete; the High Court declined to interfere with the District Court pre-trial ruling at the leave stage given uncertainties about the hearing process and the better capacity of the trial judge to resolve the matters.
15 Jun 2020
The Court held the statement was admissible because rights to silence and counsel were effectively communicated and understood at the formal interview and there was no evidence the appellant did not understand or could not invoke those rights; and the complaint about failure to challenge jurors for racial prejudice failed because the accused must personally raise such challenges, there was no evidential foundation showing juror bias or that the absence of challenge caused a miscarriage of justice, and it would be inappropriate in this case to change established jury selection practice absent…