New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Automatism

  • 17 Jul 2023

    T (CA36/2022) v THE KING [2023] NZCA 299

    Citation
    [2023] NZCA 299
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The post-trial partner affidavit and consequent expert opinion do not provide sufficiently cogent fresh evidence that a jury, acting reasonably, would probably have found a reasonable doubt on a sexsomnia automatism defence; leave to adduce further evidence was declined and the conviction appeal dismissed. Separately, the Court granted extension of time for the sentence appeal and reduced the sentences on the protection order charges relating to NF to six weeks' home detention to run concurrently, with resumption of home detention on 24 July 2023 and bail revoked from that date.

  • 22 Jun 2020

    DARRELL EDWARD JAMES DUNN v R [2020] NZSC 58 ]

    Citation
    [2020] NZSC 58
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal was refused because the application raised no matter of general or public importance and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice: the Court of Appeal had correctly concluded the assault was an operative cause of death and the alternative causation theories did not establish a real possibility of independent causation; further grounds not raised in the Court of Appeal failed the real‑possibility‑of‑miscarriage threshold.

  • 16 Oct 2018

    MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTON v R [2018] NZSC 94

    Citation
    [2018] NZSC 94
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised did not involve matters of public importance nor did they disclose a real risk of miscarriage: the trial Judge's directions were adequate and tailored to the facts, established intoxication law was not undermined, the sentencing Judge properly declined a s 24 hearing where trial evidence sufficed, and there was no appearance that prior sentencing notes influenced the independent sentence imposed.

  • 6 Jul 2018

    LYTTELTON v R [2018] NZCA 243

    Citation
    [2018] NZCA 243
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held that (1) the recusal application was without merit because prior involvement in a related appeal did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; (2) the trial Judge's directions were legally adequate in isolating the issue of specific intent for the jury, there was insufficient evidential foundation to leave insanity or automatism to the jury, and refusal to give an orthodox intoxication direction did not amount to error; (3) the jury verdicts were reasonable on the evidence; and (4) the sentencing Judge correctly declined a disputed-facts hearing under s 24 because sufficien…