20 Sept 2019
The judge's summing up fairly represented the expert's educative evidence, did not misapply s 127 or impermissibly link general research to the specific facts, and any departures from statutory wording were contextual and not prejudicial; therefore no real risk the verdicts were affected and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Nov 2018
The judge accepted the complainant's evidence as honest and reliable on core matters despite delay, found the acts of penetration and other sexual contact proven beyond reasonable doubt, found established use of force and threats negated consent and that the defendant lacked a reasonable belief in consent, and held that admissible propensity evidence and lies to police reinforced the Crown case; accordingly convicted on all charges.
28 Jun 2018
Extension of time granted; on the merits the Court found no miscarriage of justice: the judge permissibly declined a s122 delay warning, the counter-intuitive expert evidence was admissible and directions were adequate, the prior conviction was properly admitted as propensity evidence under s43 because its probative value outweighed prejudicial risk, and the sentence was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive; accordingly convictions and sentence appeals dismissed.
23 May 2018
On the balance of probabilities the Court preferred the Clinical Advisory Panel and clinical advisor evidence that the rotator cuff pathology was degenerative/attritional related to subacromial impingement and not caused by the 20 June 2014 assault; the alleged mechanism was unlikely to produce the tear and the lengthy delay and lack of contemporaneous shoulder complaints negated a robust inference of causation, so ACC's decline and the reviewer's decision were upheld.
25 Aug 2017
There was insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's four teeth were lost as a result of the hospital treatment; contemporaneous records indicated missing teeth pre-operatively and comprehensive post-operative notes would likely have recorded new dental loss, and the long delay in reporting further undermined causation, so the treatment injury threshold under s32(1)(b) was not met.
20 Dec 2016
Considering lay evidence of post-accident symptoms, the treating surgeon's and a specialist's causal opinions, and the totality of medical evidence, the Court concluded on the balance of probabilities (allowing robust inference) that the appellant's right shoulder pathology was caused by the May 2011 accident; the Corporation's decision declining cover was therefore set aside.
6 May 2016
Even if the complainant A only assumed penetration, the combination of unexplained soreness, immediate incriminating text messages and corroborative propensity evidence from K provided sufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to convict; as to K, the appellant's conduct, the presence of his condom, removal of clothing, the presence of fluid consistent with ejaculation and the circumstances supported the jury's finding of non‑consensual penile penetration and intent; appellate intervention was not justified.
16 Apr 2015
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: counter-intuitive expert evidence was admissible and substantially helpful despite some over-breadth and length, the expert's refusal to engage on false complaints did not cause a miscarriage of justice, and although the prosecutor's comment about a 'taste for young girls' was inappropriate, the trial judge's directions and the overall context cured any prejudice so the convictions stand.
27 Nov 2014
On the balance of probabilities the rotator cuff tear and need for surgery were attributable to an underlying progressive degenerative process rather than an acute injury caused by the recorded accidents; the delay in presentation and imaging supported a non-traumatic aetiology, and there was no evidence the 11 July 2011 tool trolley incident caused a new injury or functional loss, therefore ACC correctly declined cover and the appeals are dismissed.
15 Aug 2014
On the balance of probabilities the appellant's wrist injury was caused by the identified sparring accident; the MRI and the treating specialist's operative findings and subsequent reasoned opinion that the injury was traumatic outweighed the delays in presentation and the unsupported suggestions of degeneration, therefore ACC's decision to decline cover was not justified and must be set aside.