New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Demeanour directions

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2019

HAZELWOOD v R [2019] NZCA 484

Citation

[2019] NZCA 484
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the judge questioned witnesses and made detailed reliability and demeanour comments, those interventions and directions were appropriate, within judicial power, and did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice; the jury were properly directed about intoxication, reliability, consent and reasonable belief; no reluctant‑consent direction was required on the facts; lies direction was properly focused on the appellant's admitted untruths; leave was granted but the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
21 Jun 2019

TURFREY v R [2019] NZCA 241

Citation

[2019] NZCA 241
Court

Court of Appeal

The convictions were not unreasonable because detailed, consistent accounts and propensity evidence supplied sufficient support for the jury's findings; absence of a demeanour direction and absence of an explicit s122(2)(c) motive-to-lie warning did not amount to error given the trial directions and the way issues were put to the jury; appeal dismissed.
4 May 2018

B (CA231/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 137

Citation

[2018] NZCA 137
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave to adduce the further affidavit because it was neither fresh nor cogent and the trial judge's summing-up accurately reflected the expert's evidence; the judge was not obliged to give an explicit s122 reliability warning because the reliability issues were fully ventilated and addressed in summing-up; demeanour directions taken in context were not misleading; however the sentencing judge erred in not applying discounts for youth and mental health consistently across offences, so the sexual offence sentences were set aside and substituted with reduced terms (concurrent)…
20 Apr 2018

D (CA533/2016) v R [2018] NZCA 109

Citation

[2018] NZCA 109
Court

Court of Appeal

Extensions of time to appeal were granted; trial judge's directions on demeanour were adequate and not prejudicial; representative counts were properly handled because the judge required unanimity as to a specific incident/location and correctly answered jury queries; the proposed 'fresh evidence' was not fresh nor undermining and did not render convictions unsafe; juror familiarity procedure was flawed in part but produced no miscarriage of justice given the routine nature of the witness evidence and counsel's position; challenged prejudicial material did not produce a miscarriage of justice…
8 Sept 2016

LYONEL MANUREWA TE POU TANIWHA v R [2016] NZSC 123

Citation

[2016] NZSC 123
Court

Supreme Court

No miscarriage of justice arose: the trial judge's opening demeanour direction and summing up adequately directed the jury to assess credibility on the whole of the evidence so no tailored demeanour warning was required; evidence of breach of the Police safety order was admissible as explanatory background to the relationship and did not require a 'proper use' direction.

New Zealand Case Law

HAZELWOOD v R [2019] NZCA 484

TURFREY v R [2019] NZCA 241

B (CA231/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 137

D (CA533/2016) v R [2018] NZCA 109

LYONEL MANUREWA TE POU TANIWHA v R [2016] NZSC 123