|
''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." ==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.〔''R v Wanhalla'' () 2 NZLR 573 at 576.〕 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.〔At 576.〕 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.〔At 577.〕 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".〔At 577.〕 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.〔At 577.〕 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."〔At 579.〕 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."〔At 579.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Wanhalla」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|