New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Severance of charges

Legal area

Court

11 May 2022

BRASS v R [2022] NZCA 176

Citation

[2022] NZCA 176
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was no error in refusing severance because the violent offending was intrinsically linked to the alleged rapes and admissible as relationship propensity evidence; the contested EVI material had been appropriately redacted and the judge's repeated and specific directions neutralised any risk of unfair prejudice including references to bleeding/miscarriage and custody; overall no miscarriage of justice arose and the appeal was dismissed.
27 Apr 2021

SEMMENS v R [2021] NZCA 135

Citation

[2021] NZCA 135
Court

Court of Appeal

Joint trial and admission of A's pregnancy/termination evidence did not produce a miscarriage of justice because that evidence was relatively self-contained, was neutrally presented, and the Judge gave clear directions limiting use; the Judge's s92 directions contained overstatements criticising defence counsel but, viewed in the context of the comprehensive summing up and strong Crown case, those errors did not create a real risk the verdicts were affected; however the sentencing starting point of 12 years 2 months was outside the available range and was reduced to an overall starting point…
17 Dec 2020

KEMPSON v R [2020] NZCA 671

Citation

[2020] NZCA 671
Court

Court of Appeal

The application to continue name suppression was refused because the original suppression orders were time‑limited and not appealed, the speculative possibility of retrial does not create a sufficient real risk of prejudice to justify extending suppression under s200(2)(d), any jury retrial is unlikely and would itself be subject to pretrial controls including mode of trial considerations, and extensive prior publicity (including overseas publication) and the public interest in open justice outweigh the asserted prejudice.
10 Aug 2016

SENIOR v R [2016] NZCA 389

Citation

[2016] NZCA 389
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to appeal granted; conviction and sentence appeals dismissed because (1) trial judge's s122 direction, though not a formulaic 'owning' phrase, adequately identified risks of long delay and prejudice and was reinforced by counsel submissions and materials to jury; (2) severance was rightly refused as the probative value of cross‑admissible propensity evidence showing a pattern of offending against adolescent girls outweighed prejudice; (3) alleged inconsistent verdicts were rationally explicable on the evidence and jury assessments; (4) prosecutor's remarks were unfortunate a…
3 May 2016

R v ERIHE [2016] NZCA 168

Citation

[2016] NZCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the High Court judgment did resolve the admissibility of A's hearsay evidence under s18 in favour of admission and that the appeal must be dismissed; however the High Court did not resolve the separate question of receipt or exclusion under s8 in the event charges are severed, which remains open.
14 Mar 2013

MACPHERSON v R SC 94/2012

Citation

SC 94/2012
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised were not matters of general or public importance nor did they disclose a real miscarriage of justice; the appellant's conduct did amount to producing cannabis resin (produce = bring into existence), the forfeiture order was a proportionate sentencing response, and the trial judge's directions rendered severance unnecessary.
22 May 2007

KUPU V WAITAKERE DISTRICT COURT AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-001731

Citation

openlaw-6fc3f5ec_fb38_4a2b_a23f_97b8939955d9.pdf
Court

High Court

Where a single preliminary hearing covers both nominated sexual offences and related non-sexual offences which are so closely connected in time and place, s185C applies to require the complainant's evidence by written statement and it was not an error of law for the District Court judge to refuse viva voce cross-examination as that would defeat the statutory protective purpose.
5 Oct 2006

ALLAHYAI V R SC 47/2006

Citation

SC 47/2006
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly applied settled principles in refusing the fresh evidence as lacking cogency, the remaining grounds were either strategic/tactical decisions by experienced counsel or did not show prejudicial error, and nothing established a real risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting this Court's intervention.