R v Veza

In the appeal of the Crown v Martin Royce Veza, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against the conviction of Mr Veza for supplying one gram of methamphetamine to an undercover police agent. The appeal was based on the failure of trial counsel to call two witnesses and the non-disclosure of text messages between two other individuals. The Crown conceded that the text messages might have influenced the jury's deliberations. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial. The Court was satisfied that the text message evidence was credible and cogent, and that the jury might have reached a different verdict if they had had the opportunity to consider it. However, the Court found that there remained issues in dispute that should be resolved by a jury at a retrial rather than by the Court. Therefore, a retrial was ordered, and the matter will proceed depending on the prosecutorial discretion.

The Court granted Mr Veza's application to adduce new evidence in support of the appeal, including an affidavit from one of the witnesses and the text message evidence. The Court found that the new evidence met the test for admissibility and that it was in the interests of justice to admit it on the appeal. The Court noted that a substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if fresh, admissible, and apparently credible evidence was admitted, which the jury convicting a defendant had no opportunity to consider but which might have led it to reach a different verdict if it had had the opportunity to consider it. The Court accepted the Crown's submission that the text message evidence, though helpful to the defence, was well short of conclusive, and that it was a matter for a jury to determine whether the identification evidence of the undercover officers should be accepted, in the face of the text message evidence and the evidence of Mr Rimene.