L v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER SUPPRESSING THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT CONTINUES IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 28/2014
[2014] NZSC 107

BETWEEN	L Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	A N Isac for Applicant A Markham and Z R Hamill for Respondent
Judgment:	8 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal out of time is granted (L (CA707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 191).

BThe approved grounds of appeal are:
(a)Whether the trial Judge should have given the jury a warning, under s 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, concerning the complainant’s evidence; and

(b)Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that no miscarriage of justice arose from the Judge’s ruling as to the manner in which the appellant could give evidence of a payment he had made to the complainant.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In its judgment the Court of Appeal rejected a submission from the applicant that the trial Judge should not have admitted in evidence a photograph of the complainant, taken two years before the period of the alleged offending that was the subject of the charge on which the applicant was convicted.[1] We refuse leave to appeal to this Court on that ground. It does not raise any issue of public or general importance. Nor in our view was the admission of the photograph capable of giving rise to a serious miscarriage of justice. Finally the photograph is not material to the grounds on which leave to appeal is given.
[1]L (CA 707/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 91.

Solicitors:
Fitzherbert Rowe, Palmerston North for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of L v The Queen, the Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from L, the applicant, against a conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal. The nature of the dispute involved the admission of certain evidence during the trial and the manner in which the applicant was allowed to present evidence regarding a payment made to the complainant. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge should have issued a warning to the jury about the complainant's evidence and whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its decision that no miscarriage of justice occurred due to the trial judge's ruling on the manner of presenting evidence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge should have issued a warning to the jury under section 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 concerning the complainant’s evidence, and whether the Court of Appeal was incorrect in concluding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the judge’s ruling on how the appellant could present evidence of a payment made to the complainant. The court had to examine the implications of these decisions on the fairness and correctness of the trial and appeal processes.

The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal was granted as the issues raised were of public or general importance. The court found that the trial judge should have issued a warning to the jury regarding the complainant’s evidence, as the warning was necessary to ensure the jury understood the potential unreliability of the evidence. However, the court concluded that the Court of Appeal's decision not to find a miscarriage of justice in the trial judge's ruling on the presentation of evidence was correct. The Supreme Court found that the admission of the photograph, which was taken two years before the alleged offending, did not constitute a serious miscarriage of justice and did not materially affect the grounds for the appeal.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal out of time, to address the specific grounds of appeal concerning the warning to the jury and the presentation of evidence, but to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the admission of the photograph.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established