Paki Hoani Taiatini v The Queen

[2014] NZSC 26

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 2/2014
[2014] NZSC 26

BETWEEN	PAKI HOAINI TAIATINI Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	T Sutcliffe for the Applicant P D Marshall for the Respondent
Judgment:	25 March 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B.The approved questions are:

(a)Was the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her boyfriend admissible in terms of the veracity or propensity provisions of the Evidence Act 2006?

(b)If the evidence was admissible:

(i)should there have been a direction from the trial judge as to the use that could be made of the evidence?

(ii)was Mr Taiatini placed at any disadvantage from the fact that the evidence arose in the course of the trial?

(c)If the evidence was not admissible, did its admission and/or the absence of a direction from the trial judge create the risk of a miscarriage of justice?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The evidence at issue is summarised at [13]–[15] of the Court of Appeal’s judgment.[1]  The application for leave did not ask the Court to address the issue of the admissibility of that evidence.[2]

   [1]Taiatini v R [2013] NZCA 563.

   [2]Indeed, the ground of appeal in the application for leave generally challenging the admissibility of all of the mother’s evidence was abandoned.

2. The Court is of the view, however, that the question of whether the evidence at issue and/or the lack of direction created the risk of a miscarriage of justice cannot sensibly be addressed without considering whether the evidence was in fact admissible.

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington for the Respondent