R v Wade CA237/05

In R v Wade, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand reviewed the conviction and sentence of William James Wade, who had been found guilty of two counts of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 12 years by the District Court. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, and the Crown conceded that the appeal should be allowed and a new trial directed. The central issue in the appeal was whether the summing up by the trial Judge contained errors that led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court identified several shortcomings in the summing up, including the absence of a direction on the appellant's good character, a failure to provide an appropriate direction in relation to the "why should the complainant lie?" argument, not putting the defence in relation to count three, and a factual error in the summing up regarding the time lapse between certain events.

The Court held that the absence of a direction on the appellant's good character was a significant error, as it was material to both propensity and credibility. The Court also found that the Judge did not adequately address the "why should the complainant lie?" argument and failed to remind the jury of the appellant's explanation for showering with the complainant. Additionally, the Court considered the factual error made by the Judge in relation to the time lapse between events to be of minor importance.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the summing up fell short of the ideal standard, and the errors were prejudicial to the appellant. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the appellant's convictions, and directed a new trial. The final disposition of the case will depend on the decision of the prosecution authorities.