A fatal collision [1] What is the correct test to be applied under s 385(1)(a)? [4]
Contentions of the parties on the current test [4] Is Ramage out of line with the test in comparable jurisdictions? [7]
THE DECISION IN RAMAGE [8] THE AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN RAMAGE [10] CONCLUSION ON THE RAMAGE TEST [21] THE POSITION IN ENGLAND AND WALES [22] THE POSITION IN CANADA [26] THE POSITION IN AUSTRALIA [32] COMPARISON WITH RAMAGE [41]
SHOULD WE ADOPT THE POSITION IN ANY OF THE ABOVE JURISDICTIONS? [45]
Have subsequent New Zealand cases narrowed the Ramage test? [47] Should full appellate review be limited to certain types of cases? [54]
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS [57] IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE [61] EXPERT EVIDENCE [64] DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND INFERENCES [71] ADVANTAGES IN HEARING AND SEEING WITNESSES [73] CREDIBILITY [76] CONCLUSION [85]
The test to be applied under s 385(1)(a) [86]
Can Mr Munro’s conviction stand when the correct test is applied? [91]
The issues [91] Eyewitness and related evidence [97]
EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE [99] THE VICTIM’S CANNABIS CONSUMPTION [103] EVIDENCE OF CELLPHONE USE [106] ASSESSMENT OF EYEWITNESS AND RELATED EVIDENCE [108]
Deficiencies in the investigation [168] Assessment of the expert evidence [180] Assessment of the remaining Crown evidence [202]
EVIDENCE OF MR MUNRO’S INTOXICATION [203] EVIDENCE OF BAD DRIVING [207] MR MUNRO’S STATEMENTS [215] CONCLUSION ON REMAINING CROWN EVIDENCE [219]
Aspects of the trial process [220] Ought a jury acting reasonably have had a reasonable doubt? [229]
Result [235]
Appendix: Comparison of expert evidence on key points
A fatal collision
[1] On Wednesday 17 November 2004, Mr Munro was driving a single cab flatbed Isuzu truck on State Highway One south bound towards Wellington. Between about 9.40pm and 9.48pm, about half way between Manakau and Otaki in an area known as the Pukehou Rail Overbridge, he collided with a Honda car, which was travelling north. The driver of the Honda, Ms Carley Aldridge, died at the scene. Mr Munro suffered a broken sternum and was taken to Palmerston North Hospital. Blood tests taken at the hospital showed 92 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (the legal limit being 80 milligrams).
[2] On 22 September 2006, Mr Munro was convicted in the District Court at Palmerston North, after a…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Munro
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Munro [2007] NZCA 510
Case
[2007] NZCA 510
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Munro involved an appeal against the conviction of Ronald Keith Munro for causing death while driving with excess blood alcohol. The appeal was based on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence under s 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and entered a verdict of acquittal. The primary legal issues addressed were the correct test to be applied under s 385(1)(a) and whether Munro’s conviction could stand under that test. The court examined whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, considering all the evidence presented at trial. The court concluded that the jury, acting reasonably, ought to have had a reasonable doubt as to Munro’s guilt. This conclusion was based on a detailed assessment of the eyewitness and expert evidence, the deficiencies in the investigation, and the overall context of the trial. The court found that the evidence did not provide a rational basis for the jury to reject the defence version of events as a reasonable possibility.