9 Jun 2023
SINGH v R [2023] NZCA 220
- Citation
- [2023] NZCA 220
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Although the judge did not give the full intoxication direction and parts of the Crown's cross-examination engaged s32, the omissions did not create a real risk the verdict was affected: there was insufficient evidential basis that intoxication negated specific intent and the Crown's case was strong with corroborating evidence and multiple pre-trial inconsistencies by the appellant; the trial judge's detailed directions on inconsistent statements, presumption of innocence and the tripartite direction cured any prejudice, so the conviction must stand.