The Queen v Meyer

The appeal heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand involved the appellant, Robert John Meyer, who appealed against his conviction for one count of indecently assaulting a female under 12 years. Meyer did not contest the sentence of 14 months imprisonment. The case was argued on the papers, with G R Fulton representing the appellant and D La Hood for the Crown. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury was permitted to replay the complainant's evidential video during their deliberations without any accompanying directions or balanced evidence. Meyer's counsel argued that the jury's ability to replay the video without any guidance or additional material, such as an audio tape or a transcript of the cross-examination, was inappropriate. The Crown conceded that the appeal should be upheld on this ground, and the conviction quashed. The Crown also acknowledged the appellant's probable completion of his sentence and the impracticality of requiring the complainant to testify again, ultimately deciding not to seek a further re-trial.

The court accepted the Crown's stance as reasonable and responsible. The conviction, which arose from a retrial after the initial jury failed to reach an agreement, was quashed. The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, reflecting the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed and provided with balanced evidence during their deliberations.