R v Monty Hudnall [2016] NZDC 7289

Published 17 August 2016

Propensity evidence — Evidence Act 2006, ss 35, 40 and 43 — sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection — indecent assault on a child — R v Hurring [2008] NZCA 245 — D (CA 801/2013) v R [2014] NZCA 369 — D (CA383/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 260 — R v F [2013 NZHC 2028 — Mohamed v R [2011] NZSC 52 — Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92. Propensity evidence relating to the defendant’s access of inter-familial pornography was ruled inadmissible. Crown submission of high probative value of that evidence rejected. Prejudicial effect on the defendant would be too high. Mohamed, Hurring, D (CA 801/2013) v R, D (CA383/2012) v R, R v F referred to. Evidence in-chief statements surrounding the complainant’s disclosure and mother’s reaction admissible (EA s 35, Rongonui); evidence provided an important narrative in terms of timeframes. Residual prejudice to the defendant could be addressed with direction to jury.**Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements.