Coleman v The Queen

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Joseph Tua Coleman against a decision of the lower court. The central issue was the admissibility of certain words spoken by the applicant's co-accused, which may have been uttered in the applicant's absence. The court ruled that the application for leave to appeal could be dismissed without the need for an oral hearing. The applicant argued that there had been a miscarriage of justice due to the admission of this hearsay evidence, but the court found that this contention lacked merit. The court noted that the evidence might have been admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, but the applicant's own counsel had elicited it during cross-examination. Furthermore, the trial judge had instructed the jury that the evidence could not be considered against the applicant if he was not present, which may have been more favourable to the applicant than necessary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice.