New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inconsistent verdicts

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2023

LONG v R [2023] NZCA 561

Citation

[2023] NZCA 561
Court

Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence was admitted but did not materially alter the state of the evidence or create a real prospect of a different outcome; the jury was entitled to convict on the evidence presented because accidental explanations were reasonably excluded on the totality of the complainants' accounts and propensity evidence; mixed verdicts were reconcilable given differing likelihoods of detection and the jury were properly directed; the propensity and representative charge directions were adequate; name suppression statutory thresholds were not met and open justice predominated; accordingly appeal…
19 Sept 2023

BAYLIS v R [2023] NZCA 457

Citation

[2023] NZCA 457
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because the verdicts were not unreasonable or inconsistent given differences in evidential support for particular incidents, the amendment of charge 15 to accord with the complainant's evidence did not prejudice the defence, and the trial judge's directions on ACC compensation and delay were lawful and orthodox.
20 Dec 2022

SHARMA v R [2022] NZCA 648

Citation

[2022] NZCA 648
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the guilty verdict on the single charge was not inconsistent with acquittals on others because DNA corroboration supported that conviction and jurors could reasonably have been unsure about other allegations; the proposed propensity evidence was irrelevant because the defendant conceded some sexual activity so the evidence had no tendency to disprove propensity to offend; sentencing was within the appropriate band, the sentencing Judge properly made factual findings for sentencing and applied lawful discounts; therefore both appeals dismissed.
31 May 2022

F (CA691/2021) v R [2022] NZCA 217

Citation

[2022] NZCA 217
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that mixed verdicts were not inconsistent where different charges were supported by differing levels and types of evidence; an appellant must show jury confusion or an irrational approach to establish inconsistency; the affidavit about jury timing was irrelevant and not admitted; the sentencing starting point of six years was within the correct USC band two range given aggravating factors and the resulting sentence was not manifestly excessive.
28 Apr 2022

MCLEOD v R [2022] NZCA 150

Citation

[2022] NZCA 150
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the acquittal on charge 3 was not logically inconsistent with convictions on charges 1 and 2 because jurors could reasonably conclude the complainant was mistaken about fleeting contact alleged in charge 3 while accepting other acts; and the sentence of two years three months was not manifestly excessive given multiple offences against young children, breach of trust, significant age gap, ongoing harm and the offender's lack of remorse, so the appeal was dismissed.
12 Oct 2021

VADIVELU v R [2021] NZCA 525

Citation

[2021] NZCA 525
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the rape conviction because there was objective forensic corroboration (DNA and semen stains) and other evidence distinguishing the intercourse allegation from the acquitted sexual connection charges; on that evidential basis the jury could reasonably reject the appellant's account and find lack of consent, so the guilty verdict was not inconsistent or unreasonable.
11 Aug 2021

KL (CA753/2020) v R [2021] NZCA 375

Citation

[2021] NZCA 375
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the jury could reasonably accept the child's core allegation giving rise to the representative Charge 1 while acquitting on other counts because inconsistencies and matters favourable to the defence (including potential coaching, timing, frequency and context discrepancies) were matters the jury could permissibly resolve against the defence; the ROC was ambiguous and insufficiently cogent to be admitted as fresh evidence or to establish a real risk of miscarriage of justice; accordingly fresh evidence application was declined and the appeal dismissed.
21 Oct 2020

P (CA196/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 514

Citation

[2020] NZCA 514
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the treatment and limited admission of propensity evidence, and the judge's directions, were not defective to a degree creating a real risk of a different verdict; the prosecutor's brief remark equating physical and sexual propensity was inconsequential in context; and the evidence furnished reasonable explanations for acquittal on one charge and conviction on another, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
25 May 2020

WILSON v R [2020] NZCA 180

Citation

[2020] NZCA 180
Court

Court of Appeal

Judge's interventions were within discretion and did not render trial unfair; the EVI was properly before the jury and complainants' memory failures affected weight not admissibility; tyre‑track evidence was not essential corroboration and other evidence supported verdict; proposed fresh affidavits were not sufficiently cogent to establish a real risk of miscarriage — accordingly application to admit further evidence dismissed and appeals dismissed.
4 Mar 2020

ROBERT MATTI NEHO v R [2020] NZSC 13

Citation

[2020] NZSC 13
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal lawfully applied the B (SC12/13) v R principles, offered a rational, evidence-based explanation for the single conviction amid other acquittals (noting the stand-alone nature of the shower incident and supporting factors), and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice warranting Supreme Court intervention.