R v Pavitt CA257/04

In the case of R v Pavitt, the appellant was convicted on one count of aggravated robbery in the Auckland District Court and subsequently sentenced to two years imprisonment. The appeal was against the conviction on the ground of misdirection by the trial Judge in response to a question asked by the jury during the trial. The appellant argued that the Judge should not have told the jury that the two other men who accompanied him to the house had been charged. The appellant's counsel contended that the Judge's response unfairly added to the prosecution case and undermined the presumption of innocence.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the Judge's response to the jury's question about the other two men was appropriate and whether it prejudiced the appellant's case. The Court considered that the Judge's response was entirely appropriate and understandable, given the jury's curiosity about the fate of the other two men. The Court found that there was no prejudice to the accused in the answer given to the jury as it did no more than reassure the jury that all three principal offenders had been treated the same. The Court also noted that the Judge's summing up emphasised that the jury's focus should be on the actions of the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and found no risk of the Judge's answer causing a miscarriage of justice. The final order was that the appeal against conviction was dismissed.