Hannigan v R - [2013] 2 NZLR 612

Criminal practice and procedure — Witness — Previous inconsistent statement not formally produced — Whether witness could be asked questions about previous inconsistent statement — Whether questions amounted to cross-examination — Whether determination that witness hostile required — Whether appropriate to hold voir dire to determine whether witness hostile — Evidence Act 2006, ss 37(4), 89(1), 90, 92 and 94.

Evidence — Offer evidence — Whether reference to previous statement in re-examination of witness and closing address constituted offering evidence of previous statement — Evidence Act 2006, ss 4 and 37(4).

Evidence — Previous inconsistent statement — Statement not formally produced — Whether witness could be asked questions about previous statement — Whether questions amounted to cross-examination — Whether questions relevant to facts in issue challenged witness’s veracity — Whether determination that witness hostile required — Evidence Act 2006, ss 37(4), 89(1), 90, 92 and 94.

Evidence — Veracity — Whether evidence otherwise admissible challenged witness’s veracity — Whether determination that witness hostile required — Whether appropriate to hold voir dire to determine whether witness hostile — Evidence Act 2006, ss 37(4), 90, 92 and 94.