22 May 2023
Read as a whole including the agreed question trail and the judge's detailed summaries, the directions adequately and neutrally presented the defence on causation, intent and self‑defence and the judge's limited comments on absence of sworn evidence were permissible; no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal must be dismissed.
1 May 2023
Court found Commissioner breached s25(d) Bill of Rights by compelling the plaintiff to participate in the TAA civil disputes process (NOPA and GST returns) while contemplating prosecution and then later filing charges, that the breach was highly reckless and causative of plaintiff's loss, the stay was an insufficient remedy, and damages (a declaration, reimbursement of legal costs and modest emotional harm award) were appropriate.
8 Mar 2023
The Court held the police acted in good faith and within prosecutorial discretion, the January letter was not a penalty engaging double jeopardy, any uncautioned statements would be dealt with by exclusion rather than a stay, no material prejudice to trial fairness was shown, and the abuse of process threshold was not met; accordingly the application to adduce further evidence was declined and the appeal against conviction dismissed.
29 Jun 2022
Majority held s 66(2) secondary liability for manslaughter does not require the secondary party to have foreseen death; it is sufficient that the secondary party foresaw an unlawful act likely to do more than trivial harm as a probable consequence of the common purpose and that act was a substantial and operative cause of death; the trial Judge's directions were correct and other challenged directions and prosecutorial conduct did not cause a miscarriage of justice; sentence was within available range and not manifestly excessive.
4 May 2021
The stay application was dismissed because the defendant had already pleaded her defence in the civil proceeding, evidence she would give would be exculpatory, the court could limit inspection of the civil file to prevent prejudice, and practical scheduling meant the criminal trial was likely to be disposed of before the civil trial date, so the presumption in favour of the civil trial was not displaced.
30 Apr 2021
No miscarriage of justice: Crown's opening, while using 'overwhelming', did not deprive jury of impartial assessment given context and judicial directions; closing was proper advocacy and case on identity was overwhelming; police re-questioning about newly discovered keys after re-cautioning was not overbearing and the statements were admissible; sentencing Judge properly applied s 27 factors, allowed a one year (10%) discount and the overall nine year sentence was not manifestly excessive.
26 Feb 2021
Read in context the trial judge's finding that the threat was made 'with the intent of causing concern' equated to the requisite intent to intimidate/be taken seriously; the evidence supported conviction beyond reasonable doubt and no miscarriage of justice arose from the defendant's choice not to give evidence.
18 Dec 2020
The prosecutor's comments did not amount to impermissible conduct and were proper contextual submissions about credibility and use of the defendant's police interview; trial counsel was properly prepared, advised the appellant who freely elected not to give evidence, and no miscarriage of justice occurred; the Judge's assessment of culpability factors (planning/premeditation, extreme victim vulnerability due to age and intoxication, multiple sexual violations and harm) justified a nine year starting point for the rape, and the overall ten year sentence was appropriate and upheld.
15 Jun 2020
The Court held the statement was admissible because rights to silence and counsel were effectively communicated and understood at the formal interview and there was no evidence the appellant did not understand or could not invoke those rights; and the complaint about failure to challenge jurors for racial prejudice failed because the accused must personally raise such challenges, there was no evidential foundation showing juror bias or that the absence of challenge caused a miscarriage of justice, and it would be inappropriate in this case to change established jury selection practice absent…
15 Oct 2019
The application to stay parts of the summary judgment was dismissed: NZBORA rights and the right to silence are important but do not automatically override a private plaintiff’s right to timely civil relief; the likely prejudice to the plaintiffs from delay outweighed the defendant's asserted risk of real injustice because any disclosure by the defendant would be exculpatory in nature or mostly timing-related and police statements of witnesses had already been or would be disclosed, so the risk was predominantly tactical rather than producing real unfairness to the criminal trial.