Wrongly Convicted Database Record

 

Go to Database Search Page

Go to  Database Index Page

C. T.

 

Charge:

Indecent Assault (Incl. aggravated)

Sentence:

9 months home detention

Years Imprisoned:

Year Crime:

1970

Year Convicted:

2013

Year Cleared:

2014

U.S. State or Country of Crime:

New Zealand

County or Region of Crime:

City of Crime:

Rotorua

Result:

Judicially Exonerated

Summary of Case:

"C.T. was wrongly convicted in 2013 of one count of indecent assault and one representative count of inducing an indecent act in 1970 involving his 10-year-old sister-in-law. The woman didn't allege the events occured until 37 years later in 2007 when she reported it to the police. C.T. wasn't charged until March 2012. C.T. denied the abuse occurred, and his motions were denied to have the case stayed because of "forensic prejudice" due to lost evidence in his defense caused by the extended delay in the complainant reporting the alleged abuse. C.T. was convicted by a jury in 2012. New Zealand's Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and he appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 30, 2014 New Zealand's Supreme Court vacated C.T.'s convictions because the judge's jury instructions didn't adequately caution the jury about considering the complainant's testimony in light of her waiting almost four decades to report the alleged abuse to the authorities, and that the judge erred in not granting a stay of the proceedings. The Court ordered that there not be a retrial. C.T. was only identified by his initials because the Court's ruling states at the top: "NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.""

Conviction Caused By:

Trial judge errors in the jury instructions and the failure to stay the proceedings.

Innocence Proved By:

"On October 30, 2014 New Zealand's Supreme Court vacated C.T.'s convictions because the judge's jury instructions didn't adequately caution the jury about considering the complainant's testimony in light of her waiting almost four decades to report the alleged abuse to the authorities, and that the judge erred in not granting a stay of the proceedings. The Court ordered that there not be a retrial."

Defendant Aided By:

Compensation Awarded:

Was Perpetrator Identified?

Age When Imprisoned:

Age When Released:

Sex:

Male

Skin/Ethnicity:

Information Source 1:

"C.T. vs. The Queen, [2014] NZSC 155 (NZ Sup. Ct. 10-30-2014)"

Information Location 1:

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2014/155.html

Information Source 2:

"Sex convictions quashed, By Staff writers, The Dominion Post, October 30, 2014"

Information Location 2:

http://www.wlg.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10680406/Sex-convictions-quashed

Information Source 3:

Information Location 3:

Information Source 4:

Information Location 4:

Information Source 5:

Information Location 5:

Book About Case:

Book Information:

Book About Case (2):

Book Information (2):

Movie About Case:

Comments About Case:

Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org

Hosted on forejustice.org and mirrored on justicedenied.org .