Taylor v R

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Elias CJ,Blanchard,Tipping JJ
• Judgment Date: 20 July 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] NZSC 87
• Docket Number: SC 26/2010
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 20 July 2010

Brett Stephen Taylor

and

The Queen

[2010] NZSC 87

Court:

Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ

SC 26/2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

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.

Counsel:

C W J Stevenson for Applicant

G H Allan for Crown

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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 Judge's directions to the jury to avoid sympathy or prejudice were inadequate; and that the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit further expert evidence concerning the effect of alcohol consumption on memory and functionality.

2 The Judge did tell the jury that the complainant's credibility and reliability was pivotal. They were told that if they were not sure that the complainant's evidence was correct they must find the accused not guilty. The jury hardly needed to be reminded in this connection of the possibility that the complainant's recollection was affected by a drug taking and/ or consumption of alcohol. There was a good deal of evidence given about that at this short trial. And, as the complainant himself had given evidence that he was a “straight” male who had never had sexual contact previously with another male, the jury would also have been well aware of the possibility that his desire to be seen as such may have made suspect his claim that the sexual activity between the two men was not consensual. These points were so obvious as not to have needed any specific direction. It is unsurprising,...