5 Jun 2020
B (SC 18/2020) v R [2020] NZSC 52
- Citation
- [2020] NZSC 52
- Court
- Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed expert evidence on memory was not cogent or impartial, conflicted with material trial evidence and corroborating admissions (notably the applicant's post‑charge admission to his son), and therefore would not create a sufficient prospect of success or risk of miscarriage to justify granting leave; the case is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve the broader question about expert memory evidence.