R v Moli CA117/05

The appeal of Talauniu Moli against his conviction for multiple counts of sexual offending was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Moli had been found guilty by a jury on one count of indecent assault, one count of sexual violation by penile penetration of the complainant’s anus, and two counts of rape. The complainant, who had an intellectual impairment, had disclosed the abuse to her cousin, leading to the police investigation. Moli's counsel argued that the jury's verdicts were unsafe and that there were indications of coaching or collusion in relation to the complainant's evidence. The court found that the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence was not irrational and rejected the ground of appeal. Counsel also criticised the trial judge's interventions, but the court found no unfairness in the trial process. The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge's interventions did not prejudice the defendant, and the evidence of recent complaint was admissible. The court found that the complainant's intellectual impairment did not render her evidence inadmissible and that the jury was entitled to believe her testimony.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the convictions stand. The court found that the trial judge had exercised her discretion appropriately in allowing the amendment of the indictment and in excluding evidence that was not relevant to the case. The court found no basis for the appellant's claim that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or that the trial process was unfair. The court found that the complainant's intellectual impairment did not render her evidence inadmissible and that the jury was entitled to believe her testimony. The court found that the evidence of recent complaint was admissible and that the trial judge had properly excluded irrelevant evidence. The court found that the appellant had not been prejudiced by the amendment of the indictment and that the trial judge had properly exercised her discretion in allowing the amendment. The court found that the appellant's convictions were properly upheld and that the appeal should be dismissed.