Legal Research
Cases
R v Chetty

R v Chetty

Case [2016] NZSC 68 17 June 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This case is not currently available on NZLII but a Court ready (fee required) copy is available from this link

R v SSC

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Chetty

Sign in free to access the full text

Details

AGLC: R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68
Case: [2016] NZSC 68
Decision Date: 17 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

18

AGLC Citation

R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68

Most Recent Citation

King v Police [2018] NZHC 1213

Cases citing this decision · 18 of 18 shown

COLIN FREDERICK EVANS AND THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
[2024] NZCA 668 Para 4

…and the CCTV surveillance, the question is whether the evidence would have been obtained but for the impropriety.[16] [16]At [10], citing R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [47] and Perry v R [2015] NZCA 530 at [52].…
BETWEEN MANU HORI IONGI Appellant AND THE KING Respondent
[2024] NZCA 522 Para 1

…chard Mahoney and others (eds) Evidence Act 2006: Act and Analysis (3rd ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2014) at [EV30.07(1)]. [48] R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [47] per William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ.…
Evans v Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)
[2024] NZHC 1567 Para 47

…11 R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [47]. 12 Perry v R [2015] NZCA 530 at [52]. 13 R v Williams [2007] NZCA 52, [2007] 3 NZLR 207.…
W (SC 60/2023) v The King
[2023] NZSC 164 Para 7

…opriately directed on the use of W’s “lies”. [5] R v W [2019] NZHC 927; W v R [2019] NZCA 558; and CA judgment, above n 1. [6] R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [47] per William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ. [7]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(b).…
Hall v The the Queen
[2022] NZSC 71 Para 4

…oppressive and that, appropriately, Mr Hall’s intellectual abilities are part of this equation.[24] [24]See the discussion in R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [27] per William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ, albeit in the context of the Evidence Act 2006 and the Practice Note — Police Que…
R v X
[2021] NZHC 2444

…10 R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26. 11 At [45]. 12 At [45].…
Grant v Police
[2021] NZHC 2297 Para 47

…33 Evidence Act 2006, s 30(5)(a); Ward v R , above n 25, at [47], citing R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [46]-[47]; and Boskell v R [2014] 497 at [9].…
Ellery v Police
[2021] NZHC 2097

…30 See R v Shaheed [2002] 2 NZLR 377 at [71] (SC) by reference to Weeks v United States 252 US 383 (1914). 31 R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26. 32 R v Williams [2007] NZCA 52, [2007] 3 NZLR 207. 33 R v Thomas (2001) 19 CRNZ 392.…
Swainbank v The Queen
[2021] NZCA 93 Para 46

…[7] R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [46]–[47], quoting Boskell v R [2014] NZCA 497 at [9].…
Tapara v The Queen
[2020] NZHC 3380 Para 47

…21 Section 30(2)(a). 22 Section 30(2)(b). 23 Section 30(5)(c). 24 R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68 at [47].…
Kaiki (aka Smith) v Police
[2020] NZHC 980 Para 47

…12 See for example R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [47]. 13 R v Mallinson [1993] 1 NZLR 528 (CA). 14 R v Liu [2015] NZHC 746; R v Shriek [1997] 2 NZLR 139 (CA). 15 Rae v Police [2000] 3 NZLR 452 (CA) at [45].…
Wheki v Ministry of Social Development
[2020] NZHC 412 Para 47

…25 R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68 at [47]. 26 R v Alsford [2017] NZSC 40 at [39]-[40]. 27 Makaea v R [2018] NZCA 284. 28 Makaea v R , above n 27, at [39]-[40]. 29 At [45]. 30 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101 at [201].…
Ahuja v Police
[2019] NZCA 643 Para 4

…ve breaches which may nevertheless render the evidence liable to exclusion under s 30.[54] [53]Land Transport Act 1998, s 77(3)(b). [54] R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [47].…
Winders v The Queen
[2018] NZSC 100 Para 6

…when considering the applicant’s conviction appeal.[9] [6]At [130]. [7]At [136]. [8]CA 2016 judgment, above n 4, at [53]–[58], citing R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [46]–[47]. [9]CA 2018 judgment, above n 2, at [57].…
S v Police
[2018] NZHC 1582 Para 47

…12 Taunoa v Attorney-General at [289] . 13 Police v McGrath [2013] NZCA 3. 14 R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [47].…
R v Huirua
[2018] NZHC 1568 Para 54

…24 Richards v R [2014] NZCA 520 at [16]. 25 At [16]. 26 Richards v R , above n 24. 27 R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [54]. 28 Denney v R [2017] NZCA 80.…
King v Police
[2018] NZHC 1213 Para 101

…7 R v Wichman [2015] NZSC 198, [2016] 1 NZLR 753 at [101]; R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68, [2018] 1 NZLR 26 at [49]; R v Perry , above n 2; and Jones v R [2016] NZCA 185 at [24]. 8 Phillips v R [2017] NZHC 1511 at [40]. 9 Denney v R [2017] NZCA 80, at [31].…
Denney v R
[2017] NZCA 80 Para 9

…y with the interest r 5 of the Practice Note was designed to protect — avoiding dispute as to what was said in an interview. [6] R v Chetty [2016] NZSC 68 at [47]. [7]At [47].…

View all 18 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No cases cited.

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.