Jago v R - [2025] NZCA 507

Conviction and sentence appeal - evidence - dismissal of charges - unreasonable verdicts - judicial directions - manifestly excessive 

Application to adduce further evidence declined. Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence dismissed. 

Mr Jago was found guilty of historical sexual offending against two complainants. He appeals his conviction and sentence. 

Issue one: should the further evidence be admitted? 
Held: no. It is not fresh or cogent. 

Issue two: should the March 1995 charges have been dismissed/are there unreasonable verdicts? 
Held: no. The deficiencies in the criticised evidence were clearly before the jury, accompanied by comprehensive judicial directions, and it was open to them to conclude they were outweighed by other evidence. The relevant ages and date range of the charges were similarly made clear. 

Issue three: were the Judge's directions on delay adequate? 
Held: yes. The judge summed up comprehensively; covered reliability issues; was entitled to give ss 122 and 127 warnings; was not required to use the words "real care"; and reminded the jury of the "golden opportunity" point after calling them back. 

Issue four: were the Judge's directions on propensity adequate? 
Held: yes. They were comprehensive, tailored to the evidence and the case, and met the requirements of Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52, [2011] 3 NZLR 145. 

Issue five: was the sentence manifestly excessive? 
Held: no. While stern, the starting point was open to the Judge in the circumstances and accords with case law. The previous good character discount was generous, and it was open for the Judge to consider imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence appropriate.