R v Kingsbeer

The appellant, Alwyn Kingsbeer, appealed his convictions on various charges, including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, assault with a weapon, and multiple counts of assault on a child. The charges arose from incidents involving a young boy, J, over a month in 2006. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, and the court issued its judgment on 19 July 2007. The appeal was partially allowed, and the convictions on counts three and four were quashed. A retrial was ordered on these counts, while the concurrent sentences of 18 months imprisonment on the assault charges were affirmed. Bail with respect to counts three and four was to be dealt with in the District Court.

The court identified two main issues in the appeal: (a) whether the verdicts on the counts of sexual violation and assault with a weapon were unsafe due to the failure to call expert evidence, and (b) whether a propensity warning should have been given, affecting all of the convictions. The court found that trial counsel's failure to call expert evidence when the Crown expert's evidence changed at trial led to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that trial counsel should have consulted the appellant about the changed evidence and the potential impact on the case. The court concluded that the failure to do so led to a miscarriage of justice and ordered a retrial on counts three and four.

Regarding the second issue, the court found that the trial judge's summing up adequately directed the jury against propensity reasoning, and no further direction was necessary. The court concluded that the jury had been properly directed and found no merit in the appellant's argument that the directions allowed propensity reasoning.

The court affirmed the concurrent sentences of 18 months imprisonment on the assault charges, as the appellant had already served half the sentence. The court also ordered that the judgment and reasons therefor are not to be published in the news media or on the Internet until the final disposition of the trial, but publication in law reports or digests was permitted.