RJL v The Queen - SC 28/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 122(2)(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the District Court Judge was entitled to decline to give a warning under s 122(2)(e) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s ruling that the photograph evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the way the District Court Judge restricted the manner in which the applicant gave evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice.[2013] NZCA 191 CA 707/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal out of time is granted (L (CA707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 191).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’ s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.
8 August 2014
_________________________________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
No order for retrial.
21 April 2015
Related Documents
Leave judgment - leave granted — L v R [2014] NZSC 107 [8 August 2014] (PDF 40 KB)
Substantive judgment — L v The Queen [2015] NZSC 42 (21 April 2015)