New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to testify

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2021

PAHI v R [2021] NZCA 348

Citation

[2021] NZCA 348
Court

Court of Appeal

Counsel's brisk and direct advice did not overbear the appellant's will; the appellant knowingly and voluntarily elected not to give evidence. Prior convictions for non-sexual violence against the same complainant were properly admitted as propensity evidence because they were highly probative of the relationship dynamics relevant to consent and reasonable belief. The District Court correctly treated the earlier violent assault as an aggravating feature linked to the subsequent sexual offending; the overall sentence of 10 years was not manifestly excessive.
13 May 2021

MUTSAMWIRA v R [2021] NZCA 177

Citation

[2021] NZCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held counsel did not act incompetently: the expert evidence lacked an evidential foundation because the appellant would not corroborate the key factual premise (drug consumption) and medical records did not support the claim; calling the expert and the appellant would have posed substantial risks likely to damage credibility; the appellant's decision not to give evidence was informed and voluntary based on proper advice; and the Judge's intoxication direction was adequate. Accordingly the conviction stands and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Jun 2017

STEWART v R [2017] NZCA 253

Citation

[2017] NZCA 253
Court

Court of Appeal

Counsel did not breach duty in advising the appellant; the appellant was properly advised and made an informed decision not to give evidence, the failure to produce the photographs was not materially prejudicial, and the appellant failed to establish counsel error that created a real risk the verdict was affected; appeal dismissed.
6 Dec 2016

KHANBIGY v R [2016] NZCA 583

Citation

[2016] NZCA 583
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeals: the intercepted communications and surveillance provided an adequate circumstantial basis to infer that the appellant obtained and onsold methamphetamine on the specified dates; there was no real risk that counsel's advice not to give evidence affected the verdict; joinder, the reduction to 11 jurors, admission of cash evidence and any publicity did not render the trial unfair, particularly given judicial directions on inferences.
11 Mar 2013

EGEN v R SC 112/2011

Citation

EGEN v R SC 112/2011
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice or new substantive grounds; her submissions added nothing material to the record and the issues were factual matters for the jury and the Court of Appeal.
16 Dec 2011

EGEN v R SC 112/2011

Citation

SC 112/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed ground did not raise an arguable miscarriage of justice and no other factor made it in the interests of justice to grant leave.

New Zealand Case Law

PAHI v R [2021] NZCA 348

MUTSAMWIRA v R [2021] NZCA 177

STEWART v R [2017] NZCA 253

KHANBIGY v R [2016] NZCA 583

EGEN v R SC 112/2011

EGEN v R SC 112/2011