Reddy v The King - [2025] NZSC 137

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT AND PROPENSITY WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 76/2025
[2025] NZSC 137

BETWEEN	NALESH NITIN REDDY Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	D P Hoskin and T M Newman for Applicant M K Regan for Respondent
Judgment:	14 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Following a jury trial, Mr Reddy was convicted of one charge of kidnapping, one representative charge of sexual violation by rape and one representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (anal penetration). The charges arose from his repeated rape and anal penetration of the victim, Ms V, over a two-day period at his home in October 2021.[1]
[1]Mr Reddy was acquitted of one further representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (oral penetration).
At Mr Reddy’s trial, propensity evidence was adduced of similar allegations made by another complainant, Ms P. These concerned events in 2004 which had resulted in charges of abduction, sexual violation and indecent assault. After a trial in 2016, Mr Reddy had been acquitted of all charges relating to Ms P, except one charge of sexual violation by rape where the jury was unable to reach a verdict. At a retrial in 2017 Mr Reddy was acquitted of the remaining charge.
On 27 June 2025, Mr Reddy’s appeal against conviction for the offending against Ms V was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[2] There were two grounds of appeal: that the introduction of the propensity evidence was an error that led to a miscarriage of justice and that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable.[3]
[2]Reddy v R [2025] NZCA 277 (Campbell, Venning and Eaton JJ) [CA judgment].
[3]At [3]. The circumstances of the offending against Ms V are set out at [6]–[11]. The propensity evidence relating to Ms P and the trials relating to that evidence are discussed at [14]–[23].
Mr Reddy applies for leave to appeal on the basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong to find the propensity evidence was admissible.

Court of Appeal decision

With regard to the propensity evidence ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the evidence had been properly admitted.[4] The Court also held that the propensity issues had been dealt with appropriately in the summing up.[5]
[4]At [46].
[5]At [47]. There had in any event been no challenge to the directions given by the trial Judge.
The Court rejected the contention that the propensity evidence and Ms V’s allegations were fundamentally different in kind. The Court held that, while the background circumstances were different, there were a number of similar features. Both Ms P and Ms V alleged they were effectively detained by Mr Reddy using threats associated with a weapon to coerce compliance.[6] In both cases Mr Reddy…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Reddy v The King

Details

AGLC: Reddy v The King [2025] NZSC 137
Case: [2025] NZSC 137
Decision Date: 14 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Reddy v The King, the applicant, Nalesh Nitin Reddy, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for kidnapping, rape, and unlawful sexual connection involving a victim, Ms V, over a two-day period. The case involved significant propensity evidence from another complainant, Ms P, concerning similar allegations from 2004, which had previously been tried and resulted in Reddy's acquittal. Reddy's appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the propensity evidence was admissible and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Reddy now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal erred in finding the propensity evidence admissible.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the admissibility of the propensity evidence under section 43 of the Evidence Act 2006. Reddy contended that the Court of Appeal had overlooked the unique circumstances of his case, where the propensity evidence related to allegations that had been tried twice before a jury, resulting in full acquittals. The Crown argued that there was no special rule for acquittal evidence following multiple trials and that the propensity evidence was properly admitted and did not pose a risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court found that the settled law on prior acquittals and the admissibility of propensity evidence applied equally to cases involving multiple trials. The Court held that the probative value of the evidence was assessed in the same way as for any other propensity evidence, and there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal had correctly applied the statutory test in section 43 of the Evidence Act, and there was no point of general or public importance arising from Reddy's appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court's decision affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment and rejected Reddy's application for leave to appeal. The court found that the Court of Appeal had appropriately considered the admissibility of the propensity evidence and that the test for leave to appeal had not been met. The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal did not raise any new points of law or present a risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Orders