New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compellability

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2020

DENNIS HAUNUI v R [2020] NZSC 153

Citation

[2020] NZSC 153
Court

Supreme Court

Supreme Court allowed the appeal because Ms X was not 'unavailable' merely by announcing through counsel an intention to claim privilege; compellability and privilege are distinct and privilege must be assessed in response to specific questions; exclusion of admissible text messages (other than the 8:57am message) deprived the defendant of a fair trial under s 232(4)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and therefore caused a miscarriage of justice; convictions quashed and retrial ordered; publication of this judgment and proceedings suppressed until final disposition of retrial (publication in law…
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.
19 Dec 2019

CLARKSON v R [2019] NZCA 671

Citation

[2019] NZCA 671
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was granted in relation to the first two grounds because a conviction for assault is serious and the issues could raise a miscarriage of justice, but on the merits the Court concluded there was no conflict of interest and the advice given was legally adequate and comprehensive, the appellant had made an informed decision to plead guilty influenced by multiple factors known before the court appearance, and there was no real risk the outcome would have been different; accordingly the second appeal against conviction was dismissed.
14 Oct 2009

SOLICITOR-GENERAL V X (CA173/2009) AND ANOR CA CA173/2009

Citation

openlaw-64a815c3_8507_4421_81a1_5d072ca423a7.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Crown failed to demonstrate that the maker of the hearsay statement was unavailable because it did not show it was not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; mere non-response from the foreign central authority and evidence of requests under MACMA were insufficient, so s18(1)(b)(i) was not satisfied and the hearsay could not be admitted on that basis.
13 Apr 2006

SFO V MAMFREDOS HC AK CIV-2005-404-5971

Citation

openlaw-0135665c_409a_4c30_833b_22801e9189eb.pdf
Court

High Court

A s9 notice issued by the Director under the Serious Fraud Office Act is an investigatory act and does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of the Evidence Act because no court is seised and the Director is not acting judicially; therefore spousal privilege under s29 EAA does not amount to a lawful excuse under s45(d) where the spouse of an uncharged person has been served with a s9 notice.

New Zealand Case Law

DENNIS HAUNUI v R [2020] NZSC 153

FENTON v R [2020] NZHC 1832

CLARKSON v R [2019] NZCA 671

SOLICITOR-GENERAL V X (CA173/2009) AND ANOR CA CA173/2009

SFO V MAMFREDOS HC AK CIV-2005-404-5971