R v Nuku CA287/04

Ian Hapeta William Nuku appeals against his conviction on four drug-related charges, arguing that the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to call rebuttal evidence from Mr Beck and that a reference to the appellant's prior imprisonment led to a miscarriage of justice. Ms McGregor, Nuku's partner, was also convicted on three drug-related charges but was acquitted of receiving stolen property. Nuku was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The appeal against sentence was abandoned. The evidence at trial indicated that the police executed a search warrant at 132 Hair Street, Wainuiomata, and found significant quantities of drugs and stolen property. The appellant and Ms McGregor were present during the search. The Crown's case was that the appellant and Ms McGregor were the only permanent residents of the property, which was used for drug dealing and band practices. The appellant told the police that he was "hooked on methamphetamine" and rented the property for $170 per week. The appellant claimed to be a bone carver and that the property had always been an open home. The appellant's counsel cross-examined the police about Mr Beck's role at the property, but no suggestion was made that Mr Beck was an occupier or that he paid or contributed to the rent. After the appellant gave evidence, the Crown applied to call Mr Beck to give rebuttal evidence. The trial judge allowed this and directed the jury to disregard a reference by Mr Beck to the appellant's prior imprisonment. The Court found that the trial judge correctly exercised her discretion to allow the Crown to call rebuttal evidence from Mr Beck, as the appellant had positively claimed that Mr Beck continued to live at the property and pay the rent, despite knowing that his evidence was false. The Court also found that the reference to the appellant's prior imprisonment did not prejudice the jury, given the physical evidence of the drugs found at the property. The appeal was dismissed.