R v Uasi

In this case, William Inoke Uasi appealed his conviction on charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand allowed the appeal against the conviction for causing grievous bodily harm, quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered a retrial. The appeal against the conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice was dismissed. The Court found that the trial judge erred in law by not including a warning about the risk of a serious miscarriage of justice in the identification warning under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006. However, the Court concluded that it was not appropriate to rely on the proviso in s 385(1) of the Crimes Act, as the Crown case essentially relied on one eyewitness. The issues of identification did not affect the evidence for the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appeal against the conviction for this charge was dismissed.

The Court found that the Crown's opening statement was unfairly prejudicial, but this did not form a valid ground for challenging the conviction. The Court also rejected the argument that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The Court noted that the inconsistencies within the Crown's case were inconsequential and the trial judge had dealt with the difficulties arising from violent episodes involving large numbers of people in his summing up.