R v Fa'Apusa CA300/06

The case of R v Fa'Apusa CA300/06 was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Emile Fa'Apusa, was convicted in the District Court of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The conviction was based on the appellant's alleged involvement as a secondary party in an attack on a complainant, who was stabbed by others during a confrontation. The appeal against the conviction was grounded on three main arguments: the trial judge's inadequate direction to the jury on the legal elements of sections 66(1) and 66(2) of the Crimes Act, misstatement of the defence case, and an imbalance in the presentation of the Crown's and defence's cases. The Court of Appeal found the summing up by the trial judge to be defective, leading to a miscarriage of justice. It was held that the judge failed to clearly differentiate between the elements required for guilt under sections 66(1) and 66(2), overemphasised the Crown's case, and misstated the defence case. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was directed. An order was made prohibiting the publication of the reasons for judgment in the news media or on the internet until the final disposition of the new trial, with exceptions for publication in law reports or law digests.