White v R

The appellants, Mr Deon Michael White, Mr Taniora Wayne Ropiha and Mr Carl William Paterson, were convicted following a District Court jury trial for their involvement in a home invasion. The court was required to determine whether the Judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding the admissibility of two hostile witnesses' statements, the reliability of those statements, and the potential witness intimidation. The court was also required to determine whether the Judge's directions on party liability and the claim of right were adequate. Lastly, the court was required to determine whether Mr Ropiha's sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court found that the Judge approached the matter correctly and fairly to the defence. The Judge's directions to the jury regarding the hostile witnesses' statements were adequate and the statements were not so unreliable that they should not have gone to the jury. The Court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellants intimidated the witnesses. The Court found that the Judge's directions on party liability and the claim of right were adequate. Lastly, the Court found that the Judge's sentence for Mr Ropiha was not manifestly excessive.

Paterson's application to extend the time for filing his conviction appeal was granted, and Ropiha's application to extend the time for filing his conviction and sentence appeal was granted. White and Paterson's applications to extend the time for filing their sentence appeals were declined. The appeals against conviction were dismissed, and Ropiha's appeal against sentence was dismissed.