Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 115/2015
[2015] NZSC 200

BETWEEN	LYONEL MANUREWA TE POU TANIWHA Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall for Applicant M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	18 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted [Taniwha v R [2015] NZCA 434].
BThe approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions that:
(a)no miscarriage of justice arose as a result of the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury; and
(b)evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible and no “proper use” direction was required.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lyonel Manurewa Te Pou Taniwha has applied for leave to appeal against his conviction for manslaughter. The conviction was handed down by the High Court at Auckland and upheld by the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues that the Supreme Court of New Zealand had to address were whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its findings that no miscarriage of justice occurred due to the absence of a tailored demeanour direction in the Judge’s summing up to the jury and whether the evidence of the appellant’s breach of a police safety order two days after the date covered by the final count alleged in the indictment was admissible without requiring a "proper use" direction.

The Supreme Court examined the Court of Appeal's handling of the demeanour direction issue, which pertains to the judge’s instructions to the jury regarding the credibility of the appellant’s testimony. The Court of Appeal had determined that the absence of a specific demeanour direction did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court assessed whether this conclusion was sound, considering the unique circumstances and the potential impact of such an omission on the jury's evaluation of the appellant's credibility. Additionally, the Court scrutinized the admissibility of the police safety order breach evidence, determining whether it was relevant to the appellant's character or conduct and whether it necessitated a "proper use" direction to prevent misuse by the jury.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that no miscarriage of justice occurred due to the absence of a tailored demeanour direction. The Court also upheld the decision that the evidence of the police safety order breach was admissible and did not require a "proper use" direction. The Court concluded that the evidence was relevant to the appellant's conduct and did not unfairly prejudice him. The application for leave to appeal was granted, but the convictions were maintained.

The Supreme Court's final orders included granting the application for leave to appeal, thereby allowing the appellant to further pursue his case, while simultaneously upholding the original convictions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established