R v McEldowney

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Craig Kevin McEldowney, was convicted on two counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one count of sexual violation by rape. McEldowney appeals against his conviction, arguing there were irregularities in the jury's deliberations and that further evidence was available that could have impacted the trial's outcome. The appeal does not pursue two other grounds relating to the medical evidence and evidence about the complainant’s level of intoxication.

The appellant argues that the jury’s verdicts were unsafe due to the length of deliberations, the jury’s indication of their progress, and the need for a Papadopoulos direction. The Court held that the length of deliberations was not out of the ordinary, and the jury's discussions did not suggest intimidation or coercion. The Court also found no need to amend the Papadopoulos direction or to poll the jury.

Regarding the new evidence, the appellant claims that Luke Henderson, who was present at the barbecue, could provide fresh evidence suggesting that Samuel Smaller, who took the complainant home, had some sexual intent toward her. However, the Court found that this evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and did not meet the criteria for fresh evidence. Additionally, the Court determined that even if the evidence was fresh and credible, it would not have led to a finding of not guilty.

The appeal is dismissed. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments concerning the jury's deliberations and the availability of further evidence. The evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to support the conviction, and the new evidence, if it could have been obtained earlier, would not have changed the outcome.