Pt v The Queen

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 50/2010
[2010] NZSC 86
PT
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ
Counsel:A G V Rogers for Applicant
N P Chisnall for Crown

Judgment:20 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]       The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s[1] dismissal of his appeal against conviction on a charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. He was also convicted of injuring and assault charges involving the same complainant, who had been his partner. The jury, however, acquitted him of four other charges of sexual violation.
[1]PT v R [2010] NZCA 151.
[2]       On the count on which the applicant was convicted, the complainant’s evidence was that the applicant had engaged her in non-consensual oral sex during which he had bitten her on the clitoris. The applicant denied that he had bitten her and said that their sexual connection was with her consent. A general practitioner gave evidence that on examining the complainant 10 months later he had observed abnormality in her clitoral area which he said was likely to be scarring from a previous trauma.
[3]       The first ground of appeal is that this evidence was irrelevant or an expert’s opinion that was not substantially helpful and accordingly inadmissible under ss 7 and 25 of the Evidence Act 2006. We are, however, satisfied that the ground is not arguable. The doctor’s evidence was clearly sufficiently connected to the disputed issue of whether the complainant had been bitten to be relevant. Likewise, the doctor’s opinion evidence about likely scarring was sufficiently related to the complainant’s disputed evidence of being bitten to meet the threshold in s 25 of being substantially helpful.
[4]       The second ground raised some concerns over errors in the way the trial Judge referred to the doctor’s evidence in his direction to the jury. These concerned her description of the size of the scarring and the place of the injury. We are satisfied that it is not arguable that these errors could have confused the jury. They were not capable of giving rise to a miscarriage of justice.
[5]       The application for leave to appeal against conviction is accordingly dismissed. There is a contingent application for leave to appeal against sentence which consequently fails.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of PT v The Queen, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction by the Court of Appeal for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The applicant was also convicted of injuring and assault charges involving the same complainant, who had been his partner. The jury acquitted the applicant of four other charges of sexual violation. The applicant argued that the evidence presented by a general practitioner, who observed abnormality in the complainant's clitoral area, was irrelevant and not substantially helpful, rendering it inadmissible under sections 7 and 25 of the Evidence Act 2006. The applicant also argued that there were errors in the way the trial judge referred to the doctor's evidence in his direction to the jury, which may have confused the jury.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand found that the doctor's evidence was relevant and substantially helpful, as it was connected to the disputed issue of whether the complainant had been bitten. The court also found that the alleged errors in the trial judge's direction to the jury were not capable of giving rise to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the contingent application for leave to appeal against sentence also failed.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that evidence presented in court is relevant and substantially helpful, and that the trial judge's direction to the jury is clear and free from errors that could confuse the jury. The court's decision also underscores the importance of the principles of admissibility of evidence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established