Ieremia v The Queen

[2020] NZSC 60

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

 SC 19/2020
 [2020] NZSC 60

BETWEEN	PENIAMINA IEREMIA Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall for Applicant A Markham for Respondent
Judgment:	3 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted in part (Ieremia v R [2020] NZCA 17).

B        The approved questions are:

(i)whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a result of this evidence not being before the jury at the applicant’s trial; and

(ii)whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of the complainants’ previous convictions was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial, or that, if any of it was admissible, its exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The issues on which the applicant sought leave to appeal are:

   (a)the Court of Appeal’s refusal to give leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson on the basis that it was not cogent;

   (b)the Court of Appeal’s refusal to give leave to adduce the evidence of a memory expert, Dr Strange, on the basis it was not cogent;[1] and

   (c)the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that evidence of the previous convictions of the complainants would not have been substantially helpful to the jury and that the absence of this evidence at the trial did not have any impact on the verdicts.

   [1]The Court of Appeal heard the present appeal at the same time as B (CA463/2018) v R [2020] NZCA 18, in which the appellant had also sought to adduce evidence of Dr Strange. An application for leave to appeal against that decision to this Court has been dismissed: B (SC 18/2020) v R [2020] NZSC 52.

2. We have granted leave on the first and third grounds.

3. We are not satisfied that the leave criteria are met in relation to the second ground.  The focus of Dr Strange’s evidence was on statements made by the complainants in their initial police interviews about “blocking out” memories of the offending against them.  There was no cross‑examination of the complainants about these statements or on the topic of recovered memory.  This was unsurprising given the defence case was about the credibility of the complainants and the allegation they had colluded for financial gain.  As this Court noted in B (SC 18/2020) v R, the admissibility of expert memory evidence at trial may be a topic that should be considered by this Court but, as in that case, we do not see the present case as an appropriate vehicle for that to occur.[2]

   [2]B (SC 18/2020), above n 1, at [14].

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent