New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Unanimity

  • 8 Aug 2023

    HORN v R [2023] NZCA 353

    Citation
    [2023] NZCA 353
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Dismissing the disabling charge did not render evidence that the complainant fell drowsy or unconscious after drinking the orange juice inadmissible on the remaining rape charge; that evidence was relevant to consent and reasonable belief and could be considered by the jury; no mistrial or exclusion was required; the trial directions, while capable of being more tailored, were adequate and there was no miscarriage of justice; the sentence imposed was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive.

  • 19 Sept 2022

    W (CA722/2021) v R [2022] NZCA 442

    Citation
    [2022] NZCA 442
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held the s 20 representative charge remained appropriate at the close of the Crown case because the complainant, given age and delay, could not reasonably particularise dates and the incidents were of the same type without distinguishing features; no further unanimity direction or division was required and convictions were upheld. However the sentencing Judge erred in treating the offending as four rapes for starting-point purposes; sentencing should proceed on three rapes with a greater youth discount (30%), resulting in substitution of the original sentence of five years six month…

  • 20 Apr 2018

    L (CA450/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 104

    Citation
    [2018] NZCA 104
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The appeal failed because the trial judge's directions, when read in context, were adequate: he expressly directed the jury to treat counts separately, correctly explained when cross-admissible 'pattern' evidence may be mutually supportive without creating an appreciable risk of improper propensity reasoning, the representative charges complied with s20 CPA and did not require a unanimity direction, demeanour directions were appropriate to context, a written question trail was not necessary given clear oral directions, and s379 CPA cured typographical errors; consequently convictions and sent…

  • 4 Sept 2015

    UHRLE & ORS v R [2015] NZCA 412

    Citation
    [2015] NZCA 412
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held the summing up, read as a whole with the written handout and answers to jury questions, adequately instructed the jury on s66(2) including the need for foresight of both the physical and mental elements of murder and the timing of that foresight; the defence of withdrawal was not available on the evidence; s122 did not require direction in respect of counsel submissions; the knives were admissible and not unfairly prejudicial given cross-examination and lack of objection at trial; and the minimum periods imposed were not manifestly excessive; accordingly all appeals against con…

  • 3 Nov 2011

    DAVIS v R SC 93/2011

    Citation
    SC 93/2011
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised were case‑specific questions about jury directions that did not raise matters of public or general importance nor a real risk of substantial miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal's conclusions that the lies direction was justified by the implausibility and contradiction of the statement and that the totality of directions addressed the jury oath requirement were not open to criticism.

  • 9 Oct 2006

    JIANG V R SC 41/2006

    Citation
    SC 41/2006
    Court
    Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal because the questions raised about single-count pleading, adequacy of unanimity and witness-reliance directions, and the appropriateness and application of the 'reasonable evidence' test for the co-conspirators' rule are arguable and of sufficient legal importance to warrant this Court's consideration.