New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Pre-trial admissibility rulings

  • 31 Jul 2018

    WINDERS v R [2018] NZCA 277

    Citation
    [2018] NZCA 277
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Propensity evidence admitted did not materially differ from pre-trial descriptions and, with careful directions, did not produce miscarriage; the police interview had been ruled admissible on pre-trial appeal and absent any material change in facts or law the Court will not relitigate that ruling on conviction appeal (any further challenge must go to the Supreme Court); juror concerns were minor and appropriately handled by the judge without creating prejudice; factual findings established calculated planning so s104(1)(b) applied and the 17-year minimum was required; the NZBORA breach did no…

    • Propensity evidence
    • Improperly obtained evidence
    • New zealand bill of rights act 1990 s22
    • Evidence act 2006 s30
    • Pre-trial admissibility rulings
    • Mandatory minimum period s104 sentencing act 2002

  • 7 Jul 2017

    ALISTER JAMES REID v R [2017] NZSC 108

    Citation
    [2017] NZSC 108
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal was dismissed because the application did not satisfy the stringent leapfrog test; the proposed appeal would necessitate extensive review of the trial evidence, counsel addresses and the trial judge's directions rather than being confined to the pre-trial admissibility ruling.

    • Admissibility of statement of deceased victim to detective
    • Hearsay
    • Leapfrog appeal / leave to appeal
    • Pre-trial admissibility rulings

  • 22 Jul 2016

    WINDERS v R [2016] NZCA 350

    Citation
    [2016] NZCA 350
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court granted leave but dismissed the appeal: it upheld the trial judge's admission of the propensity evidence under s43 because the incidents formed a coherent pattern probative of a tendency to use firearms dangerously and the probative value outweighed prejudice; it held the photo montage qualified as a formal procedure under s45(1) because the 10–24 day delay was reasonable in the investigative context and the montage was fair, so the identification was admissible; and it held the interview statements admissible because there was no causal nexus between the unlawful arrest/detention a…

    • Propensity evidence
    • Visual identification procedures
    • Exclusion of improperly obtained evidence
    • Evidence act 2006 s43
    • Evidence act 2006 s45
    • Evidence act 2006 s30