R v Hayman CA478/05

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Hayman CA478/05 involved Raelyn Daryl Hayman who was convicted by a jury in the District Court at Rotorua on two charges: sexual violation of a teenager by unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration and indecent assault. Hayman appealed against both her conviction and sentence, with the appeal against sentence later abandoned. The appeal against conviction was advanced on the basis that there had been a miscarriage of justice due to a failure to properly direct the jury on various aspects of the onus of proof. The court identified three legal issues to decide: whether the Judge should have expressly stated that there was no onus on the defence to prove that the complainant was dreaming, whether a direction in terms of R v T was required, and whether the Judge should have provided fresh directions to the jury when they indicated difficulty with the "level of proof." The court found that the Judge properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof and that there was no breach of the proposition that there was no onus on the accused to prove any assertion offered by the defence. The court also found that a direction in terms of R v T was not required because it was clear from the summing up that the onus of proof rested with the Crown. However, the court found that the Judge should have provided fresh directions to the jury when they indicated difficulty with the "level of proof," as it put the Judge on notice about a potential problem, and the failure to do so meant that an opportunity to overcome any difficulties was foregone. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.