R v A Ca136/03

In the case of R v A Ca136/03, the appellant, a medical doctor, was convicted in the District Court of raping his wife. He applied for leave to appeal out of time and for the admission of three affidavits, including evidence from medical experts. The grounds of appeal were wrongful admission of evidence of previous violence, wrongful admission of opinion evidence from the police doctor, and radical error by defence counsel. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand found that there was no error in admitting evidence of prior violence as it was relevant to the issues to be determined, and the defence had elected to raise the topic of violence between the parties. However, there was an error in failing to direct the jury on how they should use the evidence of prior misconduct. Furthermore, there was an error in allowing the police doctor to express his opinion on the issue of consent, as expert opinion evidence on an ultimate issue such as consent is generally excluded in a rape trial. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and directed a re-trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, directing a re-trial. The Court admitted the passages in the evidence of Drs Shand and Thomson to which they had referred. The Court also gave leave to appeal out of time and admitted the three affidavits. The case highlights the importance of appropriate directions to the jury on the use of evidence of prior misconduct and the exclusion of expert opinion evidence on an ultimate issue such as consent in a rape trial.