Q (CA63/2010) v The Queen

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against conviction and sentence from Q, who was convicted of two counts of sexual violation involving anal penetration. The Court quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial, finding that the jury's verdict was influenced by inadmissible opinion evidence from a medical expert and that the trial judge's direction to the jury was incomplete. The Court found that the medical expert's use of the term "blunt force trauma" was not in itself problematic, but her opinion that the injuries were highly suggestive of non-consensual activity was inadmissible. The Court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was incomplete as it omitted the third cardinal point, which provides a counterbalance to the pressure to reach a unanimous verdict. The Court found that the omission could have placed undue pressure on the juror standing out to surrender to the majority opinion contrary to their oath. The Court quashed Q's convictions and ordered a retrial.