New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal defence

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2017

KAUR v R [2017] NZCA 465

Citation

[2017] NZCA 465
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to adduce new evidence was refused because the proposed evidence lacked credibility and cogency and did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice; the conviction and life sentence with a 17‑year minimum term were upheld because the murder fell within s 104 as a jointly planned offence involving calculated planning and a high level of brutality, and the appellant's culpability justified the sentence.
21 Feb 2017

ADAMS v R [2017] NZCA 17

Citation

[2017] NZCA 17
Court

Court of Appeal

No counsel error was established and there was no reasonable possibility the withdrawal defence would have succeeded because appellant's own conduct was a substantial and operative cause of death and mere departure did not amount to lawful withdrawal; accordingly extension of time was granted but the appeal was dismissed.
14 Jul 2016

KUMAR V R [2016] NZCA 329

Citation

(2016) 28 CRNZ 32
Court

Court of Appeal

Thabo Meli principle applies without requiring direct proof of an antecedent cohesive plan; the Crown's circumstantial and expert evidence (including pathology and conduct before and after the death) provided a sufficient and inevitable basis for the jury to infer a continuous murderous intent culminating in the burning; the trial directions on one transaction, silence and withdrawal were adequate; the s104 threshold for a 17-year minimum was properly engaged due to planning, callousness and disposal and no discount for youth was warranted.
14 Jul 2015

BAKER v R CA687/2014 [2015] NZCA 306

Citation

[2015] NZCA 306
Court

Court of Appeal

Judge properly declared Stella Norman hostile and correctly directed jury that Norman's statements were not admissible against Baker; Baker's appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed and 17-year minimum upheld under s 104. However, in Innes' trial the Judge failed to direct the jury they must be sure that Innes knew Baker had a knife; that omission was material and caused a miscarriage of justice, therefore Innes' convictions for murder and aggravated wounding are quashed and a retrial ordered; withdrawal defence was not available on the facts.
30 Oct 2014

JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014]

Citation

[2014] NZSC 153
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the murder convictions and ordered new trials because the trial Judge's summing up inadequately explained the essential elements of party liability under s 66(1) and s 66(2), failed properly to link law to evidence for each appellant (including insufficient directions on withdrawal for Rameka and insufficient treatment of withdrawal under s 66(1) for Ahsin), and failed to ensure jury unanimity safeguards where required by materially different factual bases of liability.

New Zealand Case Law

KAUR v R [2017] NZCA 465

ADAMS v R [2017] NZCA 17

KUMAR V R [2016] NZCA 329

BAKER v R CA687/2014 [2015] NZCA 306

JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014]