The Queen v George Gwaze

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 93/2009
[2009] NZSC 115
THE QUEEN
v
GEORGE EVANS GWAZE
Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:D B Collins QC Solicitor-General and B Horsley for Appellant

J H M Eaton for Respondent

Judgment:23 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i)Whether the trial Judge erred in law in admitting at the respondent's trial hearsay evidence concerning statements said to have been made by Professor Rode.
(ii)Whether, if there was an error of law, the Crown's appeal should have been allowed and a new trial ordered.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen has brought a case against George Evans Gwaze in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The case revolves around allegations of fraud and obtaining property by deception. The Supreme Court granted leave for an appeal against the respondent’s conviction, focusing on the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence presented during the trial. The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in law by allowing hearsay evidence concerning statements allegedly made by Professor Rode, and if such an error warranted the overturning of the conviction and ordering a new trial.

The legal issues before the court centered on the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the law and its impact on the fairness and reliability of the trial. The respondent argued that the hearsay evidence should not have been admitted as it violated the principles of fairness and the rules governing hearsay evidence. The court was required to determine if the trial judge's decision to admit the hearsay evidence constituted a legal error and whether this error was significant enough to necessitate a new trial.

The court, after thorough deliberation, found that the trial judge had indeed erred in law by admitting the hearsay evidence, which had a material impact on the trial’s outcome. The court held that the hearsay evidence was improperly admitted, as it did not meet the exceptions provided by the law for such evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that this error was significant and warranted the overturning of the conviction. As a result, the Crown’s appeal was upheld, and a new trial was ordered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established