R v T (CA11/07)

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by T against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal was brought out of time, but the Court extended the time for filing the appeal. The basis for the appeal against conviction was a ruling by the Judge that declined the appellant leave to question the complainant about complaints she had made of sexual misconduct by three other men. The sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment was appealed on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the ruling by the Judge did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and dismissed the conviction appeal. The Court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appeal against conviction was based on the Judge’s ruling under s 23A of the Evidence Act 1908, declining the appellant leave to question the complainant about complaints she had made of sexual misconduct by three other men. The complainant, R, was related to the appellant. The trial proceeded, resulting in the jury finding the appellant guilty on each of the four charges he faced, all of them representative. The Court held that the ruling by the Judge did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and dismissed the conviction appeal. The Court held that the appellant received a fair trial, and that justice did not miscarry.

The sentence appeal was based on the ground that the sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the effective end sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment on the lead charge was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the sentence appeal. The Court held that the sentence was entirely appropriate, and viewed it as such.