R v Kalu

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Kalu involved Simione Kalu, who faced a trial for being an accessory after the fact to a robbery. One of the Crown's proposed witnesses, Jeffrey Fenech, was a former police officer believed to be living in Australia. Kalu opposed the Crown's application to admit Fenech's written statement as evidence at his trial, arguing that Fenech should testify orally to allow for cross-examination. The legal issues in the appeal were whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the significance of the changed circumstances since the District Court's decision, and whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant leave for a subpoena to be served on Fenech.

The Court of Appeal concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the application in the District Court, although brought under s 184 of the Summary Proceedings Act, was essentially an application under s 344A of the Crimes Act, which is appealable by leave under s 379A of the Crimes Act. The Court of Appeal also found that the changed circumstances since the District Court's decision required the matter to be reargued in the District Court, as Kalu now wanted to challenge part of Fenech's written statement. However, the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to grant leave for a subpoena to be served on Fenech, as s 154(1) of the Evidence Act does not permit a New Zealand subpoena to be served in a criminal proceeding. The Court of Appeal recalled its interim judgment and quashed the order granting leave for a New Zealand subpoena to be served on Fenech in Australia. The Crown was permitted to reapply to the District Court for an order that Fenech's written statement be admitted at Kalu's trial.