New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Co-defendant evidence

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2020

TUFUI v R [2020] NZCA 568

Citation

[2020] NZCA 568
Court

Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred in law by treating the proposed showing of the arrest photographs as a dock identification and by misframing the s8 analysis, but the exclusion produced at most a speculative possibility of a different outcome and not a reasonable possibility such that a miscarriage of justice is established; accordingly convictions stand. Applications by Tapaevalu for extension of time and to adduce fresh sentencing evidence were granted but his appeal against the 17-year minimum sentence was dismissed as not manifestly unjust given his assessed culpability.
27 Jul 2020

FENTON v R [2020] NZHC 1832

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1832
Court

High Court

Although trial counsel was mistaken about s73 and should have taken steps (seek adjournment, contact co-defendant's counsel or obtain the co-defendant's willingness to testify) such error did not produce a real risk the verdict was unsafe because the proposed exculpatory account was implausible and contradicted reliable objective evidence; accordingly the appeal is dismissed though extension of time is granted.
29 Nov 2016

TAUVIRA TAUVIRA V R [2016] NZCA 559

Citation

[2016] NZCA 559
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused admission of the proffered fresh evidence because the co-accused's affidavit and the appellant's affirmations lacked credibility, the evidence was not shown to be fresh or cogent, and even if believed would not have created a real risk of a different verdict as to the appellant being a party to the assault; accordingly the application to adduce fresh evidence was declined and the conviction was affirmed (extension of time to appeal granted).
23 Mar 2016

BRACKEN v R [2016] NZCA 79

Citation

[2016] NZCA 79
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: it upheld the prior pre-trial ruling that propensity evidence was admissible and sufficiently probative of both kidnapping and murder; it held the contested cross-examination and co-defendant-led material were relevant to the co-defendant's defence and not so unfairly prejudicial as to require exclusion or to cause a miscarriage of justice; expert evidence on methamphetamine effects was properly admitted; and the sentencing Judge lawfully applied s104 and the 21-year minimum period was not manifestly excessive despite a minor error as to lack of remorse which d…

New Zealand Case Law

TUFUI v R [2020] NZCA 568

FENTON v R [2020] NZHC 1832

TAUVIRA TAUVIRA V R [2016] NZCA 559

BRACKEN v R [2016] NZCA 79