Shane Daniel Hannigan v The Queen - SC 20/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 and 94 – Appeal against conviction for arson – Propensity evidence – Whether propensity evidence admitted without regard to the balancing exercise required by s 43 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed the risk that it would be unfairly prejudicial – Whether evidence related to the specific issue in dispute – Whether any direction to the jury as to how to use the evidence should have been given – Whether evidence amounted to separate criminal allegations that should have been brought as separate charges – Cross-examination – Whether Crown breached s 94 by cross-examining its own witness – Whether Court of Appeal should have applied Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1 NZLR 23.CA 639/2011 [2012] NZCA 133
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the way in which Kirsty Hannigan was re-examined led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
30 May 2012
______________________
Appeal dismissed.
26 April 2013
Additional Information
Hearing date : 22 October 2012
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.