R v Smith - [1989] 3 NZLR 405

Criminal law — Evidence — Hearsay — Admissibility of a psychiatrist's evidence regarding exculpatory statements (or admissions) made to him by accused — Whether same rule applies to evidence from a prosecution witness as from a defence witness — Weight to be attached to psychiatrist's evidence when no direct evidence from accused — Accused, charged with murder, gave no evidence — Hearsay evidence from psychiatrists about facts on which accused could have testified was admitted as relevant to establishing self-defence or provocation — Whether accused's self-serving statements to the psychiatrists were admissible to prove self-defence or provocation — Whether there was any basis for leaving self-defence and provocation to the jury in the absence of direct evidence.

Criminal law — Defences — Provocation — Test to be applied — Whether the relation between the provocation offered and the mode of retaliation is a factor to be taken into account by the jury in determining whether there was any provocation under s 169(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.