R v Manuchhima CA185/06

The appeal of Deleep Manuchhima against his conviction and sentence for sexual violation by rape was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on 28 November 2006. Manuchhima was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years and six months. The appellant's primary contention on appeal was that he was not informed by his trial counsel that the Judge would likely direct the jury that his lack of testimony meant the jury had not heard his account of events, that the only account was from his statements to police, and that the jury had not had the benefit of hearing his account tested in cross-examination.

The court considered the advice given by the trial counsel, Mr. Edgar, to the appellant. Mr. Edgar assessed that the appellant's evidence from the first trial had been argumentative, and thus, his advice was for the appellant not to give evidence in the second trial, instead relying on his statements to police. The court found that Mr. Edgar's advice was appropriate and that there is no obligation on counsel to inform an accused of the standard trial directions given by judges in such circumstances. The court concluded that the appellant's decision not to give evidence was made in the knowledge that he was not obliged to do so and that the decision was his own.

In relation to the appeal against sentence, the court found the sentence to be within the available range, given the aggravating factors of the case, such as the abuse of trust and the complainant being unconscious. The court was satisfied that the sentence of eight years and six months' imprisonment was appropriate and dismissed the appeal against sentence. Ultimately, the appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.