Chase v The King - [2025] NZSC 154

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO IS A COMPLAINANT OR WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 72/2025
[2025] NZSC 154

BETWEEN	LEON TAMATI CHASE Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	R J Stevens for Applicant L J Sullivan for Respondent
Judgment:	11 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

The applicant, Mr Chase, was convicted after trial on seven counts of sexual offending against two young family members.[1] He was acquitted on another nine of the charges he faced. A term of eight years and three months’ imprisonment was imposed.[2] He appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal against conviction and now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.[3]

Background

[1]The convictions were entered on two charges of sexual violation by rape, two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and three charges of doing an indecent act on a child under 12.

[2]R v Chase [2023] NZDC 18518 (Judge Mackintosh).

[3]Chase v R [2025] NZCA 271 (Campbell, Dunningham and Harvey JJ) [CA judgment].

The background is set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.[4] We need only note that the offending spanned several years and took place at a number of addresses where the complainants lived or were visiting family members.
[4]At [4]–[6].
The defence case at trial was that the sexual acts did not happen. Mr Chase gave evidence at trial.

The proposed appeal

The applicant raises three broad grounds all of which relate to the trial Judge’s directions to the jury. The first of these grounds relates to the approach taken by the Judge in opening remarks; the second relates to directions about the evidence in the summing up; and, finally, the applicant says the Judge was wrong to give a propensity direction.
The proposed appeal would reprise the arguments made in the Court of Appeal. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed each of the matters raised by the applicant beginning with the issues arising out of the opening remarks.

The opening remarks

The first challenge relating to the opening remarks is directed to the failure to discuss the burden and standard of proof. The Judge in the opening remarks said this:
There is no obligation on a defendant in a criminal trial to give or call evidence. He’s perfectly entitled to rely on the presumption of innocence and we’ll be hearing more about that later on.
The Court of Appeal recorded that the Crown accepted the Court of Appeal authorities are to the effect that reference to the presumption of innocence…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chase v The King

Details

AGLC: Chase v The King [2025] NZSC 154
Case: [2025] NZSC 154
Decision Date: 11 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leon Tamati Chase against The King, the applicant, Mr Chase, was convicted after trial on seven counts of sexual offending against two young family members. Mr Chase was acquitted on another nine of the charges he faced and was sentenced to eight years and three months’ imprisonment. He appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal against conviction and now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing Mr Chase's appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The Court found that the trial Judge's directions to the jury did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the Judge's directions on the burden and standard of proof, prejudice or sympathy, and keeping an open mind were appropriate in the circumstances. The Court also found that the Judge's propensity direction was fair and fulsome and did not disadvantage the defence. The Court concluded that no question of general or public importance arose, and therefore, the criteria for leave to appeal were not met.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed, and Mr Chase's convictions and sentence stand. The Court found that the Court of Appeal was correct in its assessment of the trial Judge's directions to the jury, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was properly dismissed.

Orders