Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 42/2014
[2014] NZSC 91

BETWEEN	ABRAHAM EPARAIMA KOHAI Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	S K Green for the Applicant P D Marshall for the Respondent
Judgment:	16 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted (Kohai v R [2014] NZCA 83).

B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

As this appeal raises similar issues to those in DH (SC 9/2014) v The Queen,[1] it would be sensible for it to be set down for hearing at the same time as, or in close proximity to, DH (SC 9/2014) v The Queen, which has a current hearing date of 16 October 2014.
[1]DH (SC 9/2014) v The Queen [2014] NZSC 50.
A copy of this judgment is to be sent to the parties in DH (SC 9/2014) v The Queen.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen was heard by Justices McGrath, William Young, and Glazebrook. The applicant, Abraham Eparaima Kohai, sought leave to appeal against his conviction, arguing that the Court of Appeal had erred in dismissing his appeal. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the law concerning the admissibility of identification evidence and the standard of proof required for such evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct in light of the principles established in DH (SC 9/2014) v The Queen, a related case with similar issues.

The Supreme Court considered the established legal framework and the specific circumstances of the case. It examined the principles governing the admissibility of identification evidence, which require that such evidence must be reliable and free from any substantial risk of unfairness. The court also considered the standard of proof required for such evidence, which must meet the balance of probabilities test. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and that the identification evidence in this case was sufficiently reliable and fair.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and determined that the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the conviction appeal was correct. It noted that the issues in this appeal were similar to those in DH (SC 9/2014) v The Queen, and it recommended that the cases be heard together to ensure consistency in the application of the law. The court ordered that a copy of its judgment be sent to the parties in the related case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established