8 Nov 2013
HELU v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2013] NZHC 2965
- Citation
- [2013] NZHC 2965
- Court
- High Court
The High Court held there was no error: the trial judge validly concluded the accused's unexpected defence made rebuttal evidence necessary, the required Crown witness was medically unavailable such that the circumstances amounted to a 'casualty' under s22 Juries Act 1981 making discharge and retrial highly expedient for the ends of justice, and Judge Gittos correctly refused discharge or a permanent stay under s347; the judicial review application was therefore dismissed.