L (SC 80/2023) v The King

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: COURT OF APPEAL ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 80/2023
[2023] NZSC 146

BETWEEN	L (SC 80/2023) Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Kós JJ
Counsel:	H G de Groot and M J McKillop for Applicant R K Thomson for Respondent
Judgment:	3 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (L (CA631/2021) v R[2023] NZCA 246).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.

REASONS

Leave is granted in general terms, but counsel’s argument should concentrate on the applicability of s 16(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006 to the facts of this case.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an appeal from an applicant, identified only as L, against the decision of the Court of Appeal. L sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against a conviction, raising issues primarily concerning the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act 2006. The appeal was concerned with whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal, focusing on the interpretation and application of s 16(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision to dismiss the appeal, specifically whether the exclusion of certain evidence was appropriate under s 16(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006. This section pertains to the exclusion of evidence if its admission would be unfair to any party. The Court of Appeal had found that the evidence in question did not warrant exclusion under this provision, and L argued that this decision was incorrect.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the focus of the appeal should be on the applicability of s 16(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006 to the specific facts of the case. The court recognised the importance of this provision in balancing the interests of fairness in the administration of justice against the probative value of the evidence. The Supreme Court did not delve into the specifics of the evidence or the lower court's reasoning but rather set the stage for a focused argument on the statutory provision in question.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant leave to appeal and direct the focus of the argument underscores the significance of the statutory interpretation and its application in this context. The final outcome of the appeal will depend on the arguments presented concerning the fairness of the evidence's admission under the statutory provision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established