New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Intent

  • 13 May 2020

    TE HIKO v R [2020] NZCA 159

    Citation
    [2020] NZCA 159
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Application for recall was declined because applicant failed to establish any fundamental procedural error in the appellate process, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice that required correction, and no necessity to recall the Court's earlier dismissal; allegations about appellate counsel's conduct did not meet the high threshold for recall and fresh evidence is not a basis for recall in this Court.

  • 11 Mar 2020

    R v TOOMAN [2020] NZHC 469

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 469
    Court
    High Court

    Rejecting the accused's accidental account as not a reasonable possibility based on comprehensive expert medical evidence, contemporaneous propensity text messages, the absence of any other plausible perpetrator, and the nature and severity of the injuries, the only reasonable inference is that the accused intentionally inflicted the grievous bodily harm and had the requisite intent; guilt is therefore proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  • 19 May 2017

    KUMAR V R [2017] NZCA 189

    Citation
    [2017] NZCA 189
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held the trial judge's directions on both intent and consent were adequate: 'deliberately' properly conveyed the required mental element, the evidence did not support a finding that appellant lacked intent due to deep sleep from intoxication, and the consent directions (read as a whole) correctly reflected s 128A; accordingly there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal was dismissed.

  • 25 Oct 2016

    SMITH v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2537

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 2537
    Court
    High Court

    The appeal on the receiving conviction is dismissed because the Judge did not err in concluding the appellant was reckless as to whether the vehicle was stolen based on the totality of evidence; the appeal on the offensive weapon conviction is allowed because the sole significant evidence (location of the hatchet) was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to use it to cause bodily injury, creating a miscarriage of justice, and the offensive weapon conviction is set aside; the six month sentence for the receiving conviction stands.