New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Demeanour

  • 14 Apr 2021

    VENOD SKANTHA v R [2021] NZCA 117

    Citation
    [2021] NZCA 117
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court dismissed the appeal: the trial Judge did not err in declining an accomplice/reliability warning because W's reliability was a central, obvious issue to the jury; propensity evidence was admissible and relevant to motive and was properly managed and cautioned against unfair prejudice; exclusion of specific hearsay was correct on reliability grounds and would not have affected the outcome; lies and demeanour directions were orthodox and not prejudicial; cumulatively there was no real risk of a different outcome and convictions were upheld.

  • 14 Dec 2020

    STEVENS v R [2020] NZHC 3290

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 3290
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court dismissed the appeal: although the District Court judgment was abbreviated and did not list elements of each offence, the Judge identified the pivotal issue (complainant credibility), provided sufficient engagement with evidence and reasons to support convictions under s232, properly admitted and used propensity evidence, exercised discretion correctly on recall and adjournment, and imposed a sentence and minimum period within permissible ranges given the culpability, protection and denunciation factors.

  • 13 Feb 2020

    KAMAL GYANENDRA REDDY v R [2020] NZCA 16

    Citation
    [2020] NZCA 16
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Application to adduce further evidence was declined because the proposed evidence was neither fresh nor cogent and relied on factual assertions inconsistent with trial recordings and prior defence strategy; the jury, not the court, was entitled to assess the reliability of the Mr Big admissions; the trial judge's directions adequately identified the risks of false confession, cautioned against illegitimate reasoning and prejudice, demeanour directions were not required, and a formal s122 warning regarding Naidu was unnecessary; consequently the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

  • 20 Apr 2018

    L (CA450/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 104

    Citation
    [2018] NZCA 104
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The appeal failed because the trial judge's directions, when read in context, were adequate: he expressly directed the jury to treat counts separately, correctly explained when cross-admissible 'pattern' evidence may be mutually supportive without creating an appreciable risk of improper propensity reasoning, the representative charges complied with s20 CPA and did not require a unanimity direction, demeanour directions were appropriate to context, a written question trail was not necessary given clear oral directions, and s379 CPA cured typographical errors; consequently convictions and sent…