New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral evidence orders

Legal area

Court

14 Sept 2020

R v TONGIA [2020] NZHC 2382

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2382
Court

High Court

For a defendant who is permanently unfit the s10 involvement hearing operates as the practical alternative to trial and where objective evidence raises self-defence/defence of another the Crown must disprove that defence on the balance of probabilities; psychiatric evidence of the defendant's disability is irrelevant to the assessment of the circumstances for self-defence but police statements and objective witness evidence are admissible and probative; applying those principles, the Crown failed to disprove self-defence/defence of another and the defendant was not involved in the offences ch…
12 Dec 2019

R v TONGIA [2019] NZHC 3278

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3278
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the application for oral evidence because s 10 is limited to determining, on the balance of probabilities, whether the defendant caused the physical act or omission (actus reus); it does not require resolution of exculpatory defences such as justification/self‑defence and the defence failed to show any inherent unreliability in the written statements or any interest of justice that would require oral evidence or cross‑examination.
1 May 2015

ORTMANN, VAN DER KOLK, DOTCOM, BATATO v THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2015] NZHC 901

Citation

[2015] NZHC 901
Court

High Court

The High Court held that (1) plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the US case by way of the indictment, ROC and provided particulars; (2) the District Court's timetable directions and requirements for briefs accompanying oral evidence order applications were lawful adaptations of SPA committal procedures to the ROC context and within judicial discretion; but (3) natural justice required adjournment because three plaintiffs (Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann/van der Kolk collectively) faced a real risk of not having a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present their cases on 2 June 2015 due to recent…
1 Mar 2013

USA V DOTCOM & ORS COA CA526/2012

Citation

COA CA526/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Extradition Act's record of the case regime for exempted countries does not authorise general pre-hearing disclosure orders against a requesting state like the United States; s25 requires a summary of evidence and only those accompanying documents that are essential and not capable of summary, and the proper channel for seeking further material is the treaty mechanism (art 12) unless cogent evidence indicates abuse of process; accordingly the District Court's broad disclosure orders were quashed and the cross-appeal dismissed.
22 Dec 2009

CARROLL V THE DISTRICT COURT AT NELSON HC NEL CIV-2009-442-509

Citation

openlaw-a2ea343a_986c_44db_a077_6ab8f46a0c1c.pdf
Court

High Court

Judge's refusal to grant the oral evidence order was lawful and open to him because the statutory s180 grounds were not met: the matters could be adequately addressed at trial or by admissibility procedures (s344A), and the decision to decline an oral evidence order did not amount to a final determination giving rise to a right of appeal under s115; accordingly judicial review was the correct remedy and the application is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

R v TONGIA [2020] NZHC 2382

R v TONGIA [2019] NZHC 3278

ORTMANN, VAN DER KOLK, DOTCOM, BATATO v THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2015] NZHC 901

USA V DOTCOM & ORS COA CA526/2012

CARROLL V THE DISTRICT COURT AT NELSON HC NEL CIV-2009-442-509