Wise v The Queen

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard consolidated appeals against convictions from several appellants, including Christopher Wise, Henry Afakasi, Filimea Sililoto, John Fetu, Justin Lee Abela, Ben Kaukasi, and Zebulin Mario Daverona. Each appellant contested their criminal convictions and sentences. The appeals were heard together and the respondents were all represented by the Crown Law Office. The appellants were convicted of various offences including murder, manslaughter, and drug-related charges. The central legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. The appellants argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that was obtained improperly or was prejudicial, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the trial judge's decisions on the admissibility of evidence, considering whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that violated the appellants' rights or was otherwise inadmissible under the law. The court also assessed whether the evidence, when considered in its entirety, was sufficient to support the convictions. In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles of criminal law, including the standards for admissibility of evidence and the burden of proof. The court found that in the cases of Christopher Wise and Justin Lee Abela, the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and that this error was material to the outcome of the trials. The court also found that the evidence, when viewed without the tainted evidence, was insufficient to prove the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeals against the convictions of Christopher Wise and Justin Lee Abela were allowed, and their convictions were quashed. The remaining appeals were dismissed, and the convictions of the other appellants were upheld. The court did not order retrials for the appellants whose convictions were quashed, as it was determined that the errors in the trial process were such that a retrial would not be appropriate.