New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of co-accused statements

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2016

WHETU SONNY JAMES WAIWAI v R [2016] NZSC 85

Citation

[2016] NZSC 85
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the matters advanced did not raise issues of general or public importance and there was no real risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice: the identification and timing evidence left an available window for the Crown's account, the Crown's calling and the subsequent handling of the hostile co‑offender were within acceptable procedure and Morgan compliance, and any defects were unlikely to have affected the jury's verdict.
4 Nov 2015

TONI MAREE MILLER v R [2015] NZSC 165

Citation

[2015] NZSC 165
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed leave because the trial Judge's question trails and summing up adequately instructed the jury on limited common purpose and the requisite intents under ss 66(1) and 66(2), and any improper references to co‑accused statements in defence closing did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice given prosecutorial criticism and the Judge's lies and non‑admissibility directions.
20 Jul 2015

JONES v R CA362/2014 [2015] NZCA 312

Citation

[2015] NZCA 312
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was no miscarriage of justice: severance was not required given strategic choices by defence and adequate directions from the judge; no compulsory s122 warning was required where defence did not seek it and the judge considered s122; co-accused statements remained inadmissible against others and their use did not render verdicts unsafe; fresh evidence was inherently unreliable and would not affect verdict safety; the District Court utterance was admissible and not prejudicial given similar material; alleged prosecutorial misconduct and misdirections did not produce real r…
28 Sept 2010

CHAHIL V R SC 79/2010

Citation

SC 79/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because any impression that the co-accused's out-of-court statement was admissible against the applicant was cured by defence counsel's closing and the trial judge's firm directions; the law is settled by s 27 of the Evidence Act 2006 and there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice; the sentence adjustment raised no question of principle.
5 Feb 2009

KENNY LESLIE MCMILLAN V R SC 87/2008

Citation

SC 87/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the Court is not persuaded there is a reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal's application of the law and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice given the limiting directions and the facts of the case.

New Zealand Case Law

WHETU SONNY JAMES WAIWAI v R [2016] NZSC 85

TONI MAREE MILLER v R [2015] NZSC 165

JONES v R CA362/2014 [2015] NZCA 312

CHAHIL V R SC 79/2010

KENNY LESLIE MCMILLAN V R SC 87/2008