R v Simpson CA204/06

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Varu Rae Simpson, appealed against his convictions for indecent assault and rape of two 12-year-old girls, referred to as K and T. The central issue was whether the evidence of the offending against K should have been admitted as similar fact evidence in relation to the offending against T, and if there should have been separate trials. The appellant argued that the District Court’s decision to not order severance led to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the evidence of each complainant was admissible in relation to the charges against the other and upheld the decision to not order severance. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The court examined the facts of the case, including the details of the charges and the nature of the offending against both complainants. The court acknowledged that there were similarities between the circumstances of the offending against both complainants, such as the timing of the events, the presence of others, and the appellant’s alleged suggestion that the fathers of the complainants were responsible for the offending. However, the court concluded that the evidence of K was admissible as similar fact evidence in relation to the counts involving T, and that the prejudice to the appellant was legitimate and arose from the probative nature of the evidence.

The court also addressed other grounds of appeal, such as the admissibility of recent complaint evidence and the use of a deaf interpreter for one of the complainants. The court found no error in the Judge’s decisions regarding these matters and dismissed the corresponding grounds of appeal. The court further dismissed the argument that the verdict was unreasonable, as it was a matter for the jury to determine the credibility of the evidence presented at trial.