11 May 2016
TAULA v R [2016] NZCA 194
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 194
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Professor Birch's evidence did not meet the s25(1) threshold of being substantially helpful because the jury could understand and weigh the possibility that cannabis-related dreams or sleep phenomena produced false memories; the evidence was also obtainable for trial and thus not fresh; exclusion did not risk a miscarriage of justice, so the application to adduce further evidence was refused and the convictions were affirmed.