New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tripartite direction

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2023

HEREWINI v R [2023] NZCA 519

Citation

[2023] NZCA 519
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal against the assault with a weapon conviction because the trial judge wrongly withdrew self-defence and defence of another — those defences presented credible or plausible narratives that should have been left to the jury. The aggravated robbery conviction was upheld because there was overwhelming evidence of a shared common intention to dispossess the victim of his hoodie and cap under s235(b). The sentence for aggravated robbery was set aside and remitted for resentencing pending outcome of retrial on the assault charge (or fact-finding pursuant to s24 Sentencing…
13 Oct 2023

CROSS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2868

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2868
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge did not err in preferring corroborated police and bystander evidence over the appellant's account, that evidence met the threshold for disorderly behaviour in a public place, the police had good cause to arrest so the resisting charge stood, the assault charge was supported by witness evidence and contemporaneous footage context, and the nine‑month supervision order with anger management assessment was within permissible sentencing range and justifiable for rehabilitation.
21 Apr 2023

MOHAMMED v R [2023] NZCA 119

Citation

[2023] NZCA 119
Court

Court of Appeal

No miscarriage of justice was established: the trial Judge did not err in declining to give a lies or tripartite direction given the Crown's invitation to discard the defendant's exculpatory interview rather than treat asserted lies as independent proof, the Crown's imprecisions did not cause unfairness, and the District Court correctly refused discharge without conviction because the consequences of conviction (including deportation risk) were not out of all proportion to the medium-to-high gravity of the indecent assaults.
28 Apr 2022

DEMARCO v R [2022] NZCA 145

Citation

[2022] NZCA 145
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment was declined because the Court found the abandonment was both deliberate and informed, motivated by a strategic aim to secure parole which would undermine the integrity of the parole process and public interest in finality, no exceptional circumstances existed to justify setting it aside, and the proposed grounds of appeal did not disclose a real risk of miscarriage.
9 Feb 2022

BENTSON v POLICE [2022] NZHC 125

Citation

[2022] NZHC 125
Court

High Court

The judge did not err: he explicitly recorded the prosecution burden and presumption, placed the appellant's evidence in context, considered the defence contention and the post-incident texts and calls, and relied on independent corroboration from the complainant's brother and Constable Paki which was materially consistent with the complainant and inconsistent with the appellant. Those findings provided an adequate evidential and reasoning basis to reject the appellant's account and uphold the convictions, so no miscarriage of justice occurred.
1 Nov 2021

HORSCROFT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2934

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2934
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred by failing to apply the tripartite direction and failing to articulate reasons for rejecting the appellant's account; defence evidence from two witnesses was not adequately treated and, taken with the absence of independent corroboration, created reasonable doubt as to the assaults alleged in March 2020, therefore convictions for those assaults were quashed; the November 2020 charges had already been dismissed at trial; the appellant was resentenced on the breach of protection order to one month home detention.
24 May 2021

RICHTER v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1165

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1165
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed: the High Court held s49 requires proof only of contravention and knowledge and places on the defendant the burden to prove reasonable excuse; the trial judge legitimately preferred the complainant's evidence, the 14 March encounter and circumstantial evidence supported the inference the appellant had seen the complainant enter the pool, and any procedural omissions (absence of explicit tripartite direction or full s92-style questioning) did not produce a miscarriage of justice.
2 May 2017

HARRIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 849

Citation

[2017] NZHC 849
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed: trial judge did not err to an extent causing a miscarriage of justice; on the evidence the elements of indecent assault were established (unwanted deliberate physical contact in sexually suggestive circumstances, and the appellant intended and/or appreciated the indecent aspects); absence of an explicit tripartite direction did not render the trial unfair.
23 Nov 2016

STIRLING v R [2016] NZCA 550

Citation

[2016] NZCA 550
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the conviction appeal and the Solicitor-General's sentence appeal: the trial Judge did not err in allowing charge amendments or admitting propensity evidence (E and H) because probative value remained high and prejudice was mitigated by strong judicial directions; limited non‑compliance with Evidence Regulations affected weight not admissibility; no stay was warranted as prejudice was speculative and jury directions were adequate; the sentencing Judge reasonably applied mitigation (youth at offending, long period without further offending, evidence of self-rehabilitation)…
7 Sept 2016

KILROY v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 2115

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2115
Court

High Court

The High Court held Judge Down gave reasons adequate to the occasion for accepting the complainants' evidence and the implied rejection of the appellant's account was justified by the analysis; no miscarriage of justice or reversible error was established and the appeal was dismissed.