New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Representative charges

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

F (CA539/2022) v R [2023] NZCA 604

Citation

[2023] NZCA 604
Court

Court of Appeal

Representative charges were appropriate because the complainant described a continuing course of conduct of the same type across the marriage with no meaningful distinguishing features by location; therefore the jury faced no real risk of convicting without a common factual foundation and the absence of an additional unanimity direction did not produce a miscarriage of justice, so the appeal is dismissed.
10 Nov 2023

LONG v R [2023] NZCA 561

Citation

[2023] NZCA 561
Court

Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence was admitted but did not materially alter the state of the evidence or create a real prospect of a different outcome; the jury was entitled to convict on the evidence presented because accidental explanations were reasonably excluded on the totality of the complainants' accounts and propensity evidence; mixed verdicts were reconcilable given differing likelihoods of detection and the jury were properly directed; the propensity and representative charge directions were adequate; name suppression statutory thresholds were not met and open justice predominated; accordingly appeal…
9 Jun 2023

R v TREASURER [2023] NZHC 1433

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1433
Court

High Court

Adopt an 11‑year global starting point for the representative methamphetamine offence (lead charge) based on quantity (>2kg) and role at the cusp of lesser/significant; apply a 30% reduction (20% for addiction causation; 10% for remorse and strong rehabilitation prospects) reducing the sentence to 92 months (7 years 8 months); impose concurrent terms on the representative MDMA and ephedrine charges; do not impose a minimum period of imprisonment as one‑third non‑parole eligibility sufficiently meets denunciation and deterrence given mitigation and prospects of rehabilitation.
12 Oct 2022

MILOSEVIC v R [2022] NZCA 479

Citation

[2022] NZCA 479
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the money laundering convictions were unsafe and quashed them because of the late introduction and formulation of representative money laundering charges, the manner in which expert accounting evidence was presented and the judge's directions which failed to adequately warn the jury that many impugned transactions pre-dated the charged drug offending (and therefore required proof of earlier uncharged offending); other convictions for drug offending were upheld because, taken overall, trial conduct and judicial interventions did not render those trials unfair; sentences for Fran…
19 Sept 2022

W (CA722/2021) v R [2022] NZCA 442

Citation

[2022] NZCA 442
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the s 20 representative charge remained appropriate at the close of the Crown case because the complainant, given age and delay, could not reasonably particularise dates and the incidents were of the same type without distinguishing features; no further unanimity direction or division was required and convictions were upheld. However the sentencing Judge erred in treating the offending as four rapes for starting-point purposes; sentencing should proceed on three rapes with a greater youth discount (30%), resulting in substitution of the original sentence of five years six month…
7 Jun 2022

MEN v R [2022] NZCA 229

Citation

[2022] NZCA 229
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal against sentence was granted because there is a real issue to be examined on second appeal: whether a miscarriage of justice arose when the High Court quashed representative convictions yet dismissed the sentence appeal; leave is required under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
20 May 2022

SKYE AMBER RENES v R [2022] NZSC 64

Citation

[2022] NZSC 64
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly found no miscarriage of justice: the defence was not prejudiced by representative charges given the evidence and jury materials, the jury's question and verdict indicate they convicted based on instances where the applicant was not present, and completing and filing the ACC registration form was a key step evidencing intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage under s 228, so the convictions were not unreasonable.
14 May 2021

RENES v R [2021] NZCA 188

Citation

(2021) 30 CRNZ 114
Court

Court of Appeal

Representative charges framed under s 20(2) CPA were permissible in the circumstances; although a unanimity direction became necessary once the trial evidence disclosed distinguishable incidents, the failure to give that direction did not create a real risk of miscarriage because the jury's ninth question demonstrated they relied on specific occasions where the appellant was absent; conviction on the ACC24 charge was lawful because registration could supply or enable a pecuniary advantage and any directional points about belief/claim of right did not produce a miscarriage given the jury rejec…
27 Nov 2020

ANDREWS v R [2020] NZCA 599

Citation

[2020] NZCA 599
Court

Court of Appeal

Conviction appeal dismissed: the jury, having seen and heard the complainant's evidential interview, could reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to digital and penile penetration and there was no realistic risk of non-unanimity on the representative rape charge given the judge's directions and the evidence; Crown appeal on sentence allowed: the trial judge erred in placing offending in R v AM band 2 instead of band 3, the proper starting point was 12 years, and after a six‑month credit for good character the substituted sentence for charge 6 is 11 years 6 months to be served conc…
4 Dec 2019

SALVAJI v R [2019] NZCA 611

Citation

[2019] NZCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that trial counsel's strategic decisions were within the range of competent advocacy and did not cause a miscarriage of justice; the recorded telephone call was admissible because it was a voluntary conversational exchange not elicited by state interrogation; prior consistent statements were admissible to rebut fabrication subject to appropriate jury directions which were given; and the minimum period of imprisonment (seven years of a 14‑year term) was not manifestly excessive given the gravity, duration and premeditation of the offending and the discount already applied for go…