R v Miller CA26/06

In this case, the appellant was convicted in the Auckland District Court of injuring with intent to injure, under s 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had erred by not allowing the defence of self-defence to be put to the jury and that the judge’s summing up was unfairly balanced against him. The appeal was heard in the New Zealand Court of Appeal, which found that the trial judge had erred in not allowing the defence of self-defence to go to the jury. The Court of Appeal held that there was a credible or plausible narrative which might have led the jury to entertain the reasonable possibility of self-defence, and that the judge should have invited submissions from counsel and conducted a measured scrutiny of the issue before excluding the defence. The Court of Appeal also found that the judge’s summing up was unfairly balanced against the appellant, although this was not necessary to decide the appeal. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court also made an order prohibiting publication in the news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible databases until final disposition of the new trial, but allowed publication in a law report or law digest.