R v Shar CA239/04

In R v Shar, the appellant, Eric Shar, appealed his conviction for importing cocaine into New Zealand. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand and the panel consisted of William Young P, Potter, and Rodney Hansen JJ. The appellant was found guilty by a jury in the Auckland High Court and subsequently sentenced to 13 years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of five and a half years. The legal issues presented in this case were whether the trial Judge should have given a warning under s 12C of the Evidence Act 1908, whether the Judge's directions as to parties were inadequate, and whether there was fresh evidence from Carl John McKay which warranted a retrial.

The court held that the appeal should be allowed, and the conviction set aside. The reasoning behind this decision was that the Judge did not give a s 12C warning, and this was troubling as most Judges would have given such a warning. Furthermore, in summing up, the Judge told the jury that there was no foundation for the suggestion that Nieuwoudt might get more favourable consideration for parole if the appellant was convicted, which the court found to be incorrect. The court also noted that the Judge's directions as to parties were adequate, and the new evidence presented by the appellant was not sufficient to warrant allowing the appeal. As a result, the conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The final orders were that the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. Additionally, an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (except the result as set out in [34]) in news media or on internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial was made. Publication in Law Report or Law Digest was permitted.