R v Grey CA63/06

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Joshua Grey appealed against his conviction for the sexual violation of a 14-year-old girl. The facts of the case, which were not contested, revealed that Grey, who did not know the complainant personally, entered her home, engaged her in conversation, threatened her, and raped her. The sole issue raised in the appeal was the manner in which the trial judge dealt with a concern raised by a juror during the jury's deliberations.

The court examined the course of events during the jury's deliberations, highlighting the judge's interaction with the juror who abstained from voting on religious grounds. The judge engaged with the juror privately and encouraged her to reconsider her position and engage with her fellow jurors. The court noted that the judge did not coerce the juror but rather encouraged her to listen to her colleagues and come to a conclusion. The juror eventually returned to the jury room and participated in the unanimous verdict.

The Crown argued that the trial judge's response to the juror was appropriate and that no additional directions on the onus and standard of proof were required. The court agreed with the Crown's submission and found that the trial judge's direction did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The court emphasised that the judge's direction was not coercive and that the jury complied with the required formalities.

In conclusion, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the juror did not result in any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and that the formalities required for a jury verdict were complied with. The conviction of Joshua Grey for the sexual violation of a 14-year-old girl stands.