R v Horne CA184/06

The appellant, William Joseph Horne, was convicted of sexually violating a complainant and appeals against his conviction. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Ellen France, John Hansen, and MacKenzie JJ presiding. The appellant's counsel, E Forster, argued that the trial judge erred in not allowing a witness to refresh her memory with a prior statement, that a mistrial should have been declared due to prejudicial information, and that there were inadequacies in the trial judge's summing up of the defence case. The Crown, represented by M D Downs, opposed the appeal.

The Court held that the trial judge erred in not allowing the witness to refresh her memory with a prior statement, but found that the error did not lead to a miscarriage of justice as the witness's statement was not central to the main issue at trial. Regarding the prejudicial information, the Court found that the comments made by the complainant and the complainant's flatmate were not significant enough to warrant a mistrial. Finally, the Court found that the trial judge's omission of the admitted facts in the summing up was not significant in the context of the trial.

The Court granted an extension of time for the appeal but dismissed the appeal. No specific orders were made beyond the extension of time and dismissal of the appeal.