Keremete v The the Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA275/2018
[2022] NZCA 362

BETWEEN	JAMIE DEAN KEREMETE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	12 July 2022
Court:	Clifford, Peters and Downs JJ
Counsel:	S W O Campbell for Appellant M J Lillico for Respondent G Niven and K K C Efondo for Oranga Tamariki
Judgment:	8 August 2022 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for non-party disclosure is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Downs J)

The issue

This judgment addresses an application for non-party disclosure in relation to a pending appeal.

Background

Following a High Court jury trial, Jamie Keremete was convicted of offences for serious violence, including sexual violence, against two former partners, whom we call H and M.[1]
[1]See R v Keremete [2018] NZHC 730. The charges for which Mr Keremete was convicted included sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (x 2); injuring with intent to injure; male assaults female; threatening to kill; wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; and intentional damage.
Mr Keremete and H were in an “on and off” relationship between 2007 and 2011. Mr Keremete and M were in a relationship from June 2015. For reasons that will become apparent, we also record a third, earlier relationship: from about 2010 until around 2011, Mr Keremete was in a relationship with Melissa Wood.
H and M alleged extensive violence at Mr Keremete’s hands. Given the confined issue before us, it is not necessary to say more beyond that H and M gave similar accounts about Mr Keremete, including that he would injure their genitalia by using a fist inside them. The complainants did not know each other.
Mr Keremete appeals conviction. Several grounds of appeal are advanced, including trial counsel competence. Expressed broadly, Mr Keremete contends trial counsel ought to have done more to impeach the credibility of both complainants.
Ms Wood has sworn affidavits in support of Mr Keremete’s appeal. Their relevance to this judgment concerns a brief report of Oranga Tamariki. On 7 January 2011, someone telephoned Oranga Tamariki with alleged concerns about Ms Wood’s two-year old daughter, whom we call A. The report says:
What are the concerns?
The below information was told to the caller by a reliable source:
[A] is being subjected to her father, family and friends smoking “P” in the home (no further details known).
[A’s] maternal uncle is known to manufacture and sell “P” and [A] often visits his home with her mother and father (no further details were known other than this isn’t the first time that they have heard this).
Marijuana is often smoked in the home [while] [A] is present (no further details known).
[A] is being subjected to people consuming alcohol at her home (no further details).
[A’s] mother pushed [A] in to the corner of the table and she has a scar or mark on the top of her head (no further details known other [than] this is…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Jamie Dean Keremete appealed his conviction for serious violence, including sexual violence, against two former partners. The appeal court considered an application for non-party disclosure of an unredacted report from Oranga Tamariki, New Zealand’s child and family welfare service. The report related to allegations of harm to a child made by a third party during Keremete's relationship with a woman named Melissa Wood. Keremete sought the report to support his appeal, arguing it was relevant to the credibility of the two complainants. The appeal court had to decide whether the report was relevant enough to warrant non-party disclosure and if the public interest favoured disclosure.

The appeal court held that the report was not sufficiently relevant to Keremete’s appeal. The report did not pertain to Keremete or his children, nor did it provide any substantial evidence about the credibility of the complainants in relation to the charges against Keremete. The court also noted that veracity evidence, such as the report might be construed as, is only admissible if it substantially helps in assessing a person's truthfulness. Given that the report was unsubstantiated and did not involve any established lie, it did not meet the higher relevance threshold required for non-party disclosure in post-conviction applications. Therefore, the application for non-party disclosure was declined.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal declined the application for non-party disclosure of the Oranga Tamariki report, finding it did not meet the relevance threshold needed for such disclosure and did not warrant consideration of the public interest factors. The appeal against conviction remains unresolved by this judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established