New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Confabulation

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2023

KEN MARION SANTIAGO ANG v R [2023] NZCA 445

Citation

[2023] NZCA 445
Court

Court of Appeal

Dr Menkes' general evidence about alcohol‑induced confabulation was excluded because it could not be linked to the complainant and would not assist jurors beyond common experience; blood and urine samples were not ordered released because the testing benefit was speculative and the appellant had made an informed tactical decision at trial not to test; however the introital, vaginal and cervical swabs should be released for testing because the absence of male epithelial cells in those specific swabs may have probative value and cannot be excluded on the available evidence.
12 Dec 2017

CHETTY v R [2017] NZCA 586

Citation

[2017] NZCA 586
Court

Court of Appeal

The application to adduce Professor Birch's report on appeal was declined because the report was speculative, relied on numerous and acknowledged rough assumptions and approximations (including BAC calculations), contained impermissible advocacy beyond the expert's remit undermining his impartiality, and would not have provided the statutory 'substantial help' to the jury nor cast reasonable doubt on the safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.