New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Reliability warnings

  • 2 Dec 2019

    LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 134

    Citation
    [2019] NZSC 134
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Section 232(4)(a) requires assessing whether an identified error, irregularity or occurrence created a real risk the outcome was affected (i.e. a reasonable possibility of a different verdict). Applying that test, the Supreme Court held the new evidence (apartment manager testimony and MSD records) did not create such a real risk because it was at best evidence of opportunity, not definitive, and the defence theory of collusion and copycat allegations had already been fully ventilated to the jury; accordingly no miscarriage of justice arose and the appeal was dismissed.

  • 18 Nov 2016

    MS (CA405/2016) v R [2016] NZCA 544

    Citation
    [2016] NZCA 544
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The appeal is allowed because the judge improperly questioned the complainant on matters that introduced prejudicial material and then compounded the error by giving confused and speculative lies directions that inappropriately explained the complainant's admitted lies and asserted the appellant had "obviously lied", thereby creating a real risk of miscarriage in a finely balanced case; convictions quashed and retrial ordered.

  • 26 Jul 2016

    NGATAI v R [2016] NZCA 352

    Citation
    [2016] NZCA 352
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The judge erred by eliciting prejudicial evidence about alleged lies by the appellant and by giving a confused and speculative lies direction which offered unsupported exculpatory explanations for the complainant's admitted lies while unjustifiably asserting the defendant had 'obviously lied'; those errors were prejudicial in a case that depended almost entirely on the complainant's credibility and thus created a real risk of miscarriage of justice, warranting quashing the convictions and ordering a retrial; no s 122 reliability warning was required on these facts.

  • 6 May 2016

    DARADKEH V R [2016] NZCA 172

    Citation
    [2016] NZCA 172
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Conviction appeal dismissed: absence of an interpreter did not make the second interview unfair because appellant had sufficient English, had legal advice present, knowingly gave detailed admissions consistent with DNA evidence and the transcript; no s 122 warning required; Sentence appeal allowed: starting point of nine years was excessive for the culpability shown, appropriate starting point seven years, total deduction six months producing an end sentence of six years six months; minimum non‑parole term quashed and none imposed.