New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure of evidence

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2023

PAPPS v R [2023] NZCA 352

Citation

[2023] NZCA 352
Court

Court of Appeal

The convictions on charges 10 and 11 were quashed because the Crown accepted the evidence was insufficient to support those convictions; other challenges (amendment of charges, wording of jury questions, extent of manufacture evidence, and alleged counsel errors) did not amount to a miscarriage of justice because the alleged defence counsel deficiencies were either peripheral, remedied at trial, or did not create a real risk of affecting the verdicts; as a consequence sentence was adjusted downward from seven to five months' home detention to reflect the quashed convictions while leaving 100…
26 Jun 2019

HARDING v R [2019] NZCA 259

Citation

[2019] NZCA 259
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the Judge correctly found the appellant had received comprehensive and repeated legal advice, understood the elements and consequences of the manufacturing charges, there was no improper pressure or disqualifying conflict by counsel, the Crown case was strong that methamphetamine (not merely ephedrine) was manufactured, and no miscarriage of justice would result from upholding the guilty pleas.
21 Feb 2018

KUMAR v THE VISITING JUSTICE AT AUCKLAND PRISON [2018] NZHC 209

Citation

[2018] NZHC 209
Court

High Court

The court held that the refusal of legal representation on the facts was within the lawful exercise of s135 discretion and later denials were justified, the prosecution's partial transcription and provision of audio satisfied s121 in the circumstances, but the decision to adjourn Charge B on 2 December 2015 was procedurally irregular and unlawful because it conflicted with the statutory emphasis on prompt resolution and was inconsistent with the available facts and expectations, warranting a declaratory remedy rather than quashing of convictions.
14 Jun 2017

STEWART v R [2017] NZCA 253

Citation

[2017] NZCA 253
Court

Court of Appeal

Counsel did not breach duty in advising the appellant; the appellant was properly advised and made an informed decision not to give evidence, the failure to produce the photographs was not materially prejudicial, and the appellant failed to establish counsel error that created a real risk the verdict was affected; appeal dismissed.
16 Apr 2015

WATSON v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 718 [16 April 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZHC 718
Court

High Court

Where personal information is directly relevant to proceedings the s69 Evidence Act balancing test governs disclosure; the two paragraphs summarising the Department's explanation and the victims' opposition were not of such confidential character as to outweigh the applicant's right to see evidence relevant to the impugned decision; accordingly the unredacted affidavit must be made available to counsel under strict court-ordered custody and undertakings and continued restriction on wider access, with leave reserved for further suppression if necessary.

New Zealand Case Law

PAPPS v R [2023] NZCA 352

HARDING v R [2019] NZCA 259

KUMAR v THE VISITING JUSTICE AT AUCKLAND PRISON [2018] NZHC 209

STEWART v R [2017] NZCA 253

WATSON v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 718 [16 April 2015]