R v N (CA249/05)

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeal of an appellant who had been convicted of multiple serious offences including assault, assault with a weapon, threatening to kill, and rape. The appellant was sentenced to a total of nine years and nine months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years. The appeal contested both the conviction and the sentence. The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's ruling allowing the Crown to cross-examine the appellant about previous convictions related to the complainant. The sentence appeal focused on the five-year minimum period of imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal found no risk of a miscarriage of justice from the trial judge's ruling permitting cross-examination about the previous convictions. The previous convictions were limited to breaches of protection orders and an assault conviction. The judge warned the jury twice that the previous convictions were only relevant to the appellant's credibility. The Court found the warnings were effective in mitigating any prejudicial impact of the previous convictions.

The Court of Appeal also found the five-year minimum period of imprisonment was appropriate. The offending was deemed "sufficiently serious" to justify a minimum period under section 86 of the Sentencing Act, either as it stood before or after amendment. The Court found the violence, threats to kill, and prior phone calls made by the appellant constituted unusual callousness, justifying the minimum period.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.