New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sexual violation (rape)

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2023

A (CA102/2022) v R [2023] NZCA 533

Citation

[2023] NZCA 533
Court

Court of Appeal

The judge did not err in declining a formal s122 warning because the complainant's account of waking to sexual contact was clear, detailed and consistent with other evidence so the jury was adequately warned about intoxication effects; the judge's questions to the appellant did not create unfairness or appear partial; breach of trust was properly found because the appellant was entrusted to return an intoxicated cousin and abused that trust; a 20% global discount for ADHD and relative youth was appropriate; the District Court record contains an erroneous age description that should be correct…
24 Jul 2023

N (CA425/2022) v R [2023] NZCA 313

Citation

[2023] NZCA 313
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed both appeals: supplementary questioning was largely legitimate clarification and not impermissible repetition; prosecutor's repeated focus on absence of motive did not shift the onus because questions sought facts known to the accused and the jury were repeatedly and expressly directed that the Crown bore the burden and the accused had no obligation to prove motive; the closing, though forceful, was not improperly intemperate; and the sentencing Judge lawfully assessed the s27 cultural report, was entitled to give it no discount given inconsistencies and lack of causal lin…
7 Oct 2021

HART-DEHAR v R [2021] NZHC 2684

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2684
Court

High Court

Further evidence (psychological report and mother's affidavit) was admitted as credible and cogent to reconcile inconsistent reports; however the sentencing Judge did not err in principle and the final cumulative sentences (27 months for sexual offending cumulative on existing 75 month sentence, plus 6 months for perverting the course of justice) were not manifestly excessive; discount for upbringing was modest given limited corroboration and limited nexus to the sexual offending; threshold for permanent name suppression under s200(2) was not met as there was no persuasive evidence publicatio…
13 May 2021

MUTSAMWIRA v R [2021] NZCA 177

Citation

[2021] NZCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held counsel did not act incompetently: the expert evidence lacked an evidential foundation because the appellant would not corroborate the key factual premise (drug consumption) and medical records did not support the claim; calling the expert and the appellant would have posed substantial risks likely to damage credibility; the appellant's decision not to give evidence was informed and voluntary based on proper advice; and the Judge's intoxication direction was adequate. Accordingly the conviction stands and the appeal is dismissed.
16 Dec 2020

WOOD v R [2020] NZCA 653

Citation

WOOD v R [2020] NZCA 653
Court

Court of Appeal

The application to adduce the post‑trial recording was refused because it was hearsay of doubtful reliability and cogency (made in intoxicated informal circumstances, recorded without awareness, contained gaps and appeared reconstructive), and the trial witness's original evidence remained sufficiently reliable; separately the trial judge's directions on intoxication were adequate and consistent with authority, so no miscarriage of justice was established and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Mar 2020

HARRIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZCA 55

Citation

[2020] NZCA 55
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant could not show it was reasonably arguable that the R v AM bands caused a miscarriage of justice or that this case raised a proper concern for review; the facts demonstrated high culpability (victim rebuffed advances, was asleep, vulnerability, ejaculation, significant harm) making a custodial sentence fully justified and rendering the case an inappropriate vehicle for revisiting the bands or statutory approaches.
3 May 2019

PAORA TAHAU v R [2019] NZSC 44

Citation

[2019] NZSC 44
Court

Supreme Court

An extension of time was granted but leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly held the prison‑sentence remark was admissible to explain the complainant's conduct, the trial judge's directions adequately managed any prejudicial risk, and there was no appearance of error or miscarriage of justice warranting further appeal.
6 Sept 2017

THOMPSON v R [2017] NZCA 390

Citation

[2017] NZCA 390
Court

Court of Appeal

Admitted fresh neuropsychiatric evidence but concluded collectively the expert reports and trial record did not show appellant was unfit or that his cognitive deficits caused a real risk the verdict was affected or rendered the trial unfair; therefore appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
24 May 2017

R (CA528/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 210

Citation

[2017] NZCA 210
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the offending properly fell within band three so a 15 year starting point was available; the Judge was not wrong to refuse a remorse discount on these facts; although a 4–6 month discount for 12 months on restrictive EM bail might have been available and remission of fines was irrelevant, the overall sentence (12 years 9 months) was at the upper end of the available range but not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.