New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Veracity evidence

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2023

C (CA349/2022) v R [2023] NZCA 440

Citation

[2023] NZCA 440
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was no miscarriage of justice: exclusion of the cross‑examination on the Family Court affidavit was correct because the material could not be objectively disproved, had only tenuous relevance to veracity and did not meet the 'substantially helpful' threshold; admission of evidence of the prior gang rape was correctly allowed under s 44 because it was directly relevant to the complainant's lack of consent and the defendant's knowledge and belief, and exclusion would have been contrary to the interests of justice. Consequently the appeal against convictions was dismissed.
25 Jul 2023

R v TIMOTI & ORS [2023] NZHC 1964

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1964
Court

High Court

The judge found the convictions relied on for Mr Yelash and Ms Campbell were generally minor, mostly old (many over 20–30 years), lacked elements of explicit falsehood and had largely tailed off after 2000, and therefore were not "substantially helpful" under s37 and could not be the subject of cross-examination; by contrast the Passport Act conviction of Mr Kupa involved explicit falsehood and was permitted for cross-examination.
19 Mar 2021

HORTON v R [2021] NZCA 82

Citation

[2021] NZCA 82
Court

Court of Appeal

The Judge did not err: the complainant's extensive but mainly minor and historic shoplifting/theft convictions did not have sufficient probative value to be substantially helpful under s 37 in assessing veracity for serious sexual assault allegations, and any limited probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect under s 8; exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
15 Nov 2019

HARAWIRA v R [2019] NZCA 562

Citation

[2019] NZCA 562
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the judge at retrial properly excluded the challenged defence material because it failed the statutory thresholds for veracity or propensity or was otherwise irrelevant or would needlessly prolong proceedings, and any exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice; the convictions and the sentence (including the five‑year starting point reduced to 4.5 years) were within the available range and were upheld.
12 Nov 2019

R v SKANTHA [2019] NZHC 2942

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2942
Court

High Court

The Court held that limited cross-examination of Field about lies he told in his 13 December 2017 police interview is admissible for the narrow purpose of assessing his veracity because the evidence is substantially helpful in specific identifiable circumstances; the Court also granted the Crown's mode of evidence application permitting play of recorded interviews and screened live clarification under s107 to protect the young witness while directing the jury on limited purpose and prohibiting adverse inferences from screening.
12 Mar 2019

H (CA42/2018) v R (Reasons) [2019] NZCA 47

Citation

[2019] NZCA 47
Court

Court of Appeal

Counsel's advice that the appellant should not give evidence was materially erroneous because it overstated the real risk that prior convictions would be admitted; that erroneous advice deprived the appellant of a fundamental trial decision and, together with the prosecutor's improper comment and the trial judge's inadequate corrective direction, constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting quashing of convictions and ordering a retrial.
28 Mar 2017

HOHUA v R [2017] NZCA 89

Citation

[2017] NZCA 89
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge correctly applied the Best framework, accepting an evidential foundation existed but rightly excluded the prior complaint because it would not be substantially helpful and risked an extensive trial within a trial; the jury verdicts were not inconsistent because the jury could reject the appellant's account and accept the complainant as to digital penetration but not as to rape; the late direction on penetration did not cause miscarriage; and the sentence, including uplifts and discounts, was within the permitted range.
27 May 2016

Herron v Wallace [2016] NZHC 1127

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1127
Court

High Court

The court found the 19 November 2015 direction granted leave to the defendants to file additional evidence in relation to the oppression defence so no fresh s98 application was required for the brief; contested statements were admissible where offered to demonstrate Wallace's perception, state of mind or motivation rather than to prove the truth of asserted out-of-court facts (thereby not constituting hearsay or inadmissible opinion), save for the final sentences of paragraph 37 which were excluded as impermissible opinion; exhibits produced during examination in chief (provisionally 12–27) w…