New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rape/sexual violation

Legal area

Court

5 May 2023

CAMERON v R [2023] NZCA 157

Citation

[2023] NZCA 157
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the trial Judge did not err in giving a balanced counter-intuitive direction without expert evidence because the common law already permits such directions to correct jury misconceptions in sexual cases; the Judge's comment that the complainant's evidence about the incriminating remark was uncontradicted was not misleading in context; the victim impact statement did not disclose a miscarriage of justice; and no remission for remorse was warranted where the offender maintained denial and advanced defences, so the conviction and sentence were upheld.
13 May 2021

VAN DER MERWE v R [2021] NZHC 1108

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1108
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the District Court's starting point placed the offending at the upper end of band one/bottom of band two under R v AM and was not manifestly excessive given the aggravating features (persistence, breach of trust, victim vulnerability, filming and serious harm); the uplift for additional objectionable publications was modestly lenient but did not render the overall sentence wrong; the sentencing discounts were generous and properly applied; bail pending any Court of Appeal leave application was continued.
6 Jun 2019

R v APPERLEY [2019] NZHC 1276

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1276
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was necessary because the offender presented a continuing high risk of serious sexual offending despite prior custodial sentence and treatment; a finite sentence of 17 years with a two-thirds MPI would not provide adequate protection given enduring personality/psychopathic traits and uncertainty about long-term treatment success, therefore preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years was imposed.
22 Dec 2016

GOVERNOR v R [2016] NZCA 640

Citation

[2016] NZCA 640
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the guilty verdict on the rape charge was not unreasonable: the complainant's evidence together with contemporaneous records and complaints provided a sufficient evidential basis for a reasonable jury to convict; the acquittals on other counts did not render the verdict inconsistent; and although the Judge's stated reasons for declining a s122 warning were flawed, the failure to give the warning was not clearly erroneous and did not cause a miscarriage of justice because the Judge properly directed the jury on credibility and reliability and the jury's verdicts showed they appl…

New Zealand Case Law

CAMERON v R [2023] NZCA 157

VAN DER MERWE v R [2021] NZHC 1108

R v APPERLEY [2019] NZHC 1276

GOVERNOR v R [2016] NZCA 640