R v Wanhalla

Last updated

R v Wanhalla
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case nameR v Wanhalla and Court
Decided 24 August 2006
Citation(s) [2007] 2 NZLR 573
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting William Young P, Glazebrook, Hammond, Chambers and Robertson JJ
Keywords
Jury directions, Standard and burden of proof, reasonable doubt

R v Wanhalla was a case in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand concerning how a judge should direct a jury in a criminal case as to interpretation of the standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt. Australian jurist Brian Martin has described the judgments in the "decision as particularly helpful. They contain reviews of research, practices in other jurisdictions and primary issues in the debate." [1]

Court of Appeal of New Zealand New Zealands main intermediate appellate court

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand is principal intermediate appellate court of New Zealand. It is also the final appellate court for a number of matters. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal has existed as a separate court since 1862 but, until 1957, it was composed of Judges of the High Court sitting periodically in panels. In 1957 the Court of Appeal was reconstituted as a permanent court separate from the High Court. It is located in Wellington.

Brian Ross Martin is an Australian jurist. He was a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia before being appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 2004. He served in the Northern Territory between 2004 and 2010. He served as an acting Judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in 2012.

Contents

Background

J. Wanhalla and R. Court were tried, along with three others, in the Christchurch District Court before a judge and jury on an indictment alleging one count of aggravated burglary and three counts of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. [2]

Christchurch Metropolitan area in South Island, New Zealand

Christchurch is the largest city in the South Island of New Zealand and the seat of the Canterbury Region. The Christchurch urban area lies on the South Island's east coast, just north of Banks Peninsula. It is home to 404,500 residents, making it New Zealand's third-most populous city behind Auckland and Wellington. The Avon River flows through the centre of the city, with an urban park located along its banks.

The Crown alleged that on 30 July 2004 three carloads of people drove from Rangiora to Culverden in order to exact retribution for an incident involving Wanhalla's sister. Armed (with cricket wickets, metal pipe and bottles) and disguised, Wanhalla and his associates entered the victims' house and inflicted "significant injuries" on three victims as well as damaging the property, its contents and three vehicles parked outside. [3]

Rangiora Secondary urban area

Rangiora is the largest town and seat of the Waimakariri District, in Canterbury, New Zealand. It is 29 kilometres (18 mi) north of Christchurch, and is considered a satellite town of the city. With a population of 18,300, Rangiora is the 25th largest urban area in New Zealand, and the fourth-largest in the Canterbury region.

Culverden town in Canterbury, New Zealand

Culverden is a small town in the northern Canterbury region of New Zealand's South Island. In the 2013 New Zealand census, the town had a usually resident population of 426.

The police intercepted one of the vehicles, containing Wanhalla and Court, while returning to Rangiora. One of the vehicle's other occupants gave evidence that implicated Wanhalla and Court in the offending. Evidence against Wanhalla included a blood stain, "almost certainly came from one of the victims", on his sweatshirt and glass fragments, similar to a broken television at the property, in his shoes. [4] Evidence against Court included a "significant number of text messages were sent from her cellphone to the cellphone of one of the co-offenders. the person who sent these messages was seeking to recruit that co-offender in the attack on the victims' house". [5]

Wanhalla and Court were found guilty by the jury on all counts and appealed against their convictions on a number of grounds, the most important relating to the way the Judge summed up to the jury on the standard of proof. [6]

In his summing up in the District Court Judge Abbott had told the jury, amongst other directions on the standard of proof, that, "the Crown does not have to prove a charge to the point of absolute scientific or mathematical certainty, in other words beyond all doubt or any shadow of doubt." [7] Additionally, Judge Abbott told the jury, "and it is often said that members of a jury should be as sure about a conclusion of guilt as they would want to be about making an important decision in the context of their own personal lives." [8]

Judgments

The appeals were dismissed. The Court of Appeal reviewed New Zealand, Australian, English and Canadian jury directions on the standard of proof and held unanimously that the Judge had been entitled to "tell the jury that absolute or mathematical certainty was not required." [9] The Court also held that when people make important life decisions they often rely on "elements of speculation, hope, prejudice, emotion", as such the "everyday life analogy" has the "potential to puzzle jurors and for this reason is not helpful". [10] However the Court did not think the analogy "caused any risk of a miscarriage of justice". [11]

Model directions

President William Young delivered the majority judgment which included a model set of jury directions the Court was "inclined to view that Judges should explain the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt in these terms".

The starting point is the presumption of innocence. You must treat the accused as innocent until the Crown has proved his or her guilt. The presumption of innocence means that the accused does not have to give or call any evidence and does not have to establish his or her innocence.

The Crown must prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, you are sure that the accused is guilty.
It is not enough for the Crown to persuade you that the accused is probably guilty or even that he or she is very likely guilty. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty when dealing with the reconstruction of past events and the Crown does not have to do so.

What then is reasonable doubt? A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the accused after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence. In summary, if, after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence, you are sure that the accused is guilty you must find him or her guilty. On the other hand, if you are not sure that the accused is guilty, you must find him or her not guilty. [12]

Related Research Articles

An Alford plea, in United States law, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence. In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plea bargain is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure.

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim. After litigants have met the burden of production and their claim is being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is simply abandoned by the prosecution. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free."

Steven Murray Truscott is a Canadian man who was sentenced to death in 1959 for the rape and murder of classmate Lynne Harper. Truscott had been the last person to see her alive. He was scheduled to be hanged; however, the federal cabinet reprieved him and he was sentenced to life in prison and released on parole in 1969. Five decades later, in 2007, his conviction was overturned on the basis that key forensic evidence was weaker than had been portrayed at trial.

Lemuel Shaw American judge

Lemuel Shaw was an American jurist who served as Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1830–1860). Prior to his appointment he also served for several years in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and as a state senator. In 1847 Shaw became the father-in-law of author Herman Melville.

Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of common law countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.

<i>R v Lifchus</i>

R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the legal basis of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal law. Cory J outlined several core principles of the reasonable doubt standard and provided a list of points that must be explained to a jury when they are to consider the standard.

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

Actual innocence, also known as plain error, is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crime(s) that he or she is accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice. What makes the actual innocence standard interesting is that it may be invoked at any time, and not only in criminal proceedings but also in immigration and other civil proceedings.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution, federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

<i>R v W (D)</i>

R v W (D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on assessing guilt based on the credibility of witnesses in a criminal trial. More specifically, W.D. examines sexual assault cases and burdens of proof in evidence law.

In India according to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, murder is defined as follows:

Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- 167 2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. or- 3rdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Presumption of guilt is the principle that one is considered guilty unless proven innocent: thus the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser. According to a Stanford professor, it is not the converse of the presumption of innocence, since crime control requires that 'somebody - victim, prosecutor, or police - believes the defendant to be guilty', otherwise 'no defendant would ever face trial'. Presumption of guilt, prioritising 'speed and efficiency' over reliability, prevails however if due process is absent. In such cases the 'screening processes operated by police and prosecutors are reliable indicators of probable guilt'.

References

  1. ↑ Martin, Brian (26 January 2010). "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT". Conference of Supreme and Federal Courts Judges. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
  2. ↑ R v Wanhalla [2007] 2 NZLR 573 at 576.
  3. ↑ At 576.
  4. ↑ At 577.
  5. ↑ At 577.
  6. ↑ At 577.
  7. ↑ At 579.
  8. ↑ At 579.
  9. ↑ At 589.
  10. ↑ At 589.
  11. ↑ At 589.
  12. ↑ At 588.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.