Pretrial ruling — communication assistant — communication disability — oral questioning — Evidence Act 2006, ss 80 & 81 — R v Moeke and Karauria [2017] NZHC 1314. This was a pretrial ruling to determine whether the child complainant was entitled to a communication assistant when giving evidence. The Court looked to the legislative wording, which held that assistance could be provided unless the Judge considered that the witness could sufficiently understand oral questions and adequately respond without assistance. In an earlier set of proceedings, the term "communication disability" was held to encompass a spectrum ranging from difficulty to incapacity in relation to oral questioning. The Court considered the evidence from the expert witness and the complainant's evidential interview, and ruled that a communication assistant was not required. However, the Court requested that a communication assistant be present for the complainant's oral evidence so that the decision could be reviewed if necessary. This was not required and the complainant gave evidence without assistance. Judgment Date: 15 August 2019.