New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Similar fact evidence

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2020

P (CA196/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 514

Citation

[2020] NZCA 514
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the treatment and limited admission of propensity evidence, and the judge's directions, were not defective to a degree creating a real risk of a different verdict; the prosecutor's brief remark equating physical and sexual propensity was inconsequential in context; and the evidence furnished reasonable explanations for acquittal on one charge and conviction on another, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
21 Aug 2017

DENNIS RANGIAHO HOHUA v R [2017] NZSC 124

Citation

[2017] NZSC 124
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused: the point sought raised by the applicant was artificial because admitting only evidence of the dance‑floor interaction without the alleged sexual assault in the tent would not fairly found a submission of a prior false complaint, would be of doubtful substantial assistance, raised no point of principle, and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.
23 Jun 2016

CYGNET FARMS LIMITED v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1373

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1373
Court

High Court

Leave was granted to file the second amended statement of claim and further reply. The Court held that ANZ must make further particular discovery beyond documents relating solely to its dealings with the plaintiff where material is relevant to the pleaded representations and duty of care; this includes general ANZ briefing/marketing/training documents relating to SWAPs, complaint records by other customers alleging similar representations, certain ANZ publications, any recordings of telephone discussions with the plaintiffs and a search of archived emails. Staff remuneration/incentive informa…
10 May 2016

CAMPBELL-JOYCE v R [2016] NZCA 192

Citation

[2016] NZCA 192
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the District Court judge correctly admitted the prior breaches as propensity evidence: prior misconduct against the same complainant established a relevant propensity showing hostile and aggressive responses to conflict; close or specific matching was not required for same‑victim propensity evidence; the probative value of demonstrating the nature of the relationship and triggers to abusive or violent conduct outweighed any unfair prejudice; and standard directions and trial safeguards adequately protect the appellant's fair trial rights.
5 May 2015

KEAST v MCMASTER AND ORS [2015] NZHC 932

Citation

[2015] NZHC 932
Court

High Court

Although the affidavit evidence of the son (Maley) was superficially relevant to propensity to be abusive or manipulative, material differences in the alleged conduct, the age of events, strong dispute and lack of corroboration meant admitting it would require extensive credibility findings and a 'trial within a trial'; under s8 the probative value did not outweigh the risk of needlessly prolonging the proceeding, so the propensity evidence and replies were inadmissible.
17 Dec 2007

TOHENGAROA AND GEOFFREY JOHN HOGAN V MERILYN RUTH CONNOLLY AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-000968

Citation

openlaw-38fa07ab_1d18_45e0_b868_c07cd0424a78.pdf
Court

High Court

Documents concerning training and supervision of the first defendant were not relevant to the pleaded claims against the second defendants (which focus on administration of the trusts and vicarious liability), and ordering their production as potential similar fact evidence would be oppressive; the Associate Judge's determination refusing production of those documents was correct and the review is dismissed.
6 Aug 2007

TOHENGAROA & ANOR V CONNOLLY & ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-000968

Citation

openlaw-7428fe67_4a95_45e6_8a9b_1b7613188c64.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court inspected the non‑party documents, applied the discovery relevance test and similar fact evidence principles, and ordered limited production: documents numbered 59, 85, 90, 100, 113 and 114 were relevant and must be produced; a large number of other documents were held not relevant or oppressive to produce and were withheld; leave was reserved regarding documents 115 and 116 and any ownership disputes; costs reserved.
1 Sept 2005

YEOH & ANOR V AL SAFFAF & ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-00964

Citation

openlaw-7e262423_1016_4c1a_91e7_3ae1bde04f2a.pdf
Court

High Court

The court admitted the majority of Rollason's evidence as relevant and probative to the defendants' financial position, dealings with the bank, existence and nondisclosure of side agreements, deposits, cost overruns, Structured Finance assuming control, and subsequent marketing and sales because that history was material to issues of intention, misrepresentation and damages; the court excluded evidence that would open collateral on-site matters beyond the witness's knowledge (dealings with project engineer and builder) and specific hearsay passages, while permitting some hearsay for limited p…
2 Feb 2005

GUILD V R SC SC CRI 17/2004

Citation

openlaw-ad5e786c_0836_4a26_8f12_564777304647.pdf
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the similar fact evidence involved identical conduct at the same location and shortly before the events in issue, making it clearly relevant and admissible with probative value outweighing prejudice, and because none of the s13(2) criteria for granting leave were met.
15 Jul 2004

POURSHAD MARCO ARVAND V R SC SC CRI 3/2004

Citation

openlaw-157d2a0c_92d8_476b_9688_48d44cc1da4e.pdf
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal reasonably exercised its discretion to admit S's deposition on the basis of strong independent corroboration and exceptional circumstances, the late expert brief did not create sufficient prejudice to justify a new trial, and the contested trial rulings on cross-examination and language demonstration did not raise issues of public importance nor establish a substantial miscarriage of justice.