Taylor v R

JurisdictionNew Zealand
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeElias CJ,Blanchard,Tipping JJ
Judgment Date20 July 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] NZSC 87
Date20 July 2010
Docket NumberSC 26/2010

[2010] NZSC 87

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Court:

Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ

SC 26/2010

Brett Stephen Taylor
and
The Queen
Counsel:

C W J Stevenson for Applicant

G H Allan for Crown

Application for leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision upholding two convictions on charges of sexual violation of a male complainant. Argument the trial Judge should have given the jury a direction under s122 Evidence Act 2006 (Judicial directions about evidence which may be unreliable) concerning the possible unreliability of the complainant's evidence; that the trial Judge's directions to the jury to avoid sympathy or prejudice were inadequate; and that the CA erred in refusing to admit expert evidence concerning effect of alcohol consumption on memory and functionality — whether there was a miscarriage of justice.

Held: The trial Judge told the jury that the complainant's credibility and reliability were pivotal. The jury were correctly told that if they were not sure the complainant's evidence was correct they had to find T not guilty.

As to the proposed argument that the Judge should have given the jury something more than the standard direction counselling them against sympathy or prejudice in general terms, because of the nature of the sexual activity, the Court was not persuaded that it was arguable that the Court of Appeal erred in its overall conclusion that the absence of a tailored direction of this kind did not in the circumstances of the case give rise to a miscarriage of justice (in terms of the proviso to s385(l) of the Crimes Act 1961). The trial had proceeded in a way which made additional directions of this kind unnecessary.

On the third proposed ground of appeal – the need for expert evidence of alcohol consumption on memory and functionality, the jury was unlikely to have required such assistance as the subject was plainly not something which went beyond common knowledge and experience. CA did not err in finding there had been no miscarriage of justice. Application declined.

REASONS

1

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against dismissal by the Court of Appeal of his appeal to that Court against two convictions on charges of sexual violation of a male complainant. For the applicant it is contended that the trial Judge should have given the jury a direction under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 concerning possible unreliability of the evidence of the complainant; that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • SC SC 26/2010
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 July 2010
    ...SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 26/2010 [2010] NZSC 87 BRETT STEPHEN TAYLOR v THE QUEEN Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel: C W J Stevenson for Applicant G H Allan for Crown Judgment: 20 July 2010 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT