3 Nov 2022
The red pokies notebook was a business record admissible under s19(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006 because the suppliers of the information cannot reasonably be expected to recollect transactions after six years and the entries are sufficiently comprehensible in context; admission is not unfairly prejudicial under s8.
24 Sept 2021
The Supreme Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal's finding that the complainant was unavailable under s16(2)(d) was a fact-based determination supported by the evidence and within the legislative scheme; the hearsay notice dispensation and related admissibility issues were factual and did not raise matters of general or public importance warranting this Court's intervention.
18 Sept 2020
The Tribunal must first assess hearsay admissibility under the Evidence Act (including s 18 and s 8) and consider availability and alternative means of giving evidence; the Tribunal's cl 6(1) discretion to admit otherwise inadmissible material is residual and constrained by the requirement to observe natural justice; the Tribunal erred by failing to apply s 18 and s 8 and by not properly assessing unavailability and alternatives, so the decision is remitted for reconsideration.
11 Apr 2019
The Court held the Judge did not err: the 2013 propensity evidence had strong probative value that outweighed any unfair prejudice given the clear similarities to the index offending and careful limiting to essential features; the Crown showed reasonable diligence in attempting to locate Ms Draper and the signed contemporaneous police statement, supported by text messages and taken in the ordinary course, provided reasonable assurance of reliability, so it was admissible; the proposed fresh evidence was not fresh, cogent or credible (recantation motivated by fear/retaliation and inconsistent…
10 Aug 2018
The court admitted Mr MacLaren's affidavit and prior cross‑examination transcript as hearsay under s18(1) because he was unavailable under s16(2) and the statements, having been sworn and previously subject to cross‑examination, provided reasonable assurance of reliability; any potential unfairness from late notice did not outweigh admissibility and the weight to be given remains for the trial submissions.
14 Oct 2009
The Crown failed to demonstrate that the maker of the hearsay statement was unavailable because it did not show it was not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; mere non-response from the foreign central authority and evidence of requests under MACMA were insufficient, so s18(1)(b)(i) was not satisfied and the hearsay could not be admitted on that basis.
9 Aug 2007
The statement of Moxuan Liang is admissible under s 3 Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980 because Liang was the maker with personal knowledge and is unavailable as he is outside New Zealand and it is not reasonably practicable to obtain his evidence given the absence of any contact information or viable lines of inquiry; the statement also qualifies as a business record, and any weight and challenges to identity are matters for the substantive hearing.