27 Aug 2021
The application for leave was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had applied settled principles to refuse an extension of time and concluded the proposed appeal lacked merit; the limited significance of the prior publication and the absence of any appearance of miscarriage of justice meant there was no question of general or public importance to justify leave.
26 Mar 2019
The proposed evidence was not of such direct relevance under s 44 as to render exclusion contrary to the interests of justice because the complainant's police statement did not support the defence's asserted meaning and admission of the sister's account carried an unacceptable risk of illegitimate jury reasoning; therefore leave to appeal was granted but the appeal on the admissibility ruling was dismissed and suppression orders were appropriate.
3 Jul 2018
Recall denied because no new relevant law or omitted authoritative decision was shown, no new facts that would meet the test for leave were produced, the Tribunal had considered the original media article and anticipated further publicity, and the applicant failed to demonstrate he was taken by surprise; the original Whanganui Chronicle article may be admitted but the other post‑decision articles are excluded.
8 Aug 2016
The Court held that the judge correctly admitted the evidence of the two prior partners because, despite the 20 year gap, the prior incidents together exhibited a distinctive and unusual pattern of controlling, detaining and violent behaviour (including use of weapons in one witness) that was logically relevant and probative of the complainant's credibility; the probative value outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice and limiting directions could manage potential misuse, though the propensity evidence did not extend to the sexual violation charges.
15 Jun 2016
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part: Crown must amend charge list so each charge relates to a single discrete offence insofar as practicable; Crown may not play an unedited version of the complainant's evidential video containing references to disclosures to her mother as the complainant's evidence-in-chief unless the Crown also adduces the appellant's DVD interview; admissibility of Dr Blackwell's evidence is for the trial Judge; publication and name suppression orders made.