R v PETERS [2018] NZHC 855

R v PETERS [2018] NZHC 855

Section 45(4)(f) applies because the identification arose from a chance meeting; therefore there was 'good reason' not to follow a formal procedure and the onus shifted to the defendant to prove unreliability on the balance of probabilities. The defendant failed to discharge that burden: despite some inconsistencies and minor conflation with a guilty co-offender, the witness had sufficient opportunity to observe, produced a contemporaneous photograph, and the identification is supported by corroborative circumstantial evidence. Any prejudice is minimal and outweighed by probative value. Consequently the visual identification evidence is admissible under s101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 855
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Paul Peters
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Aggravated Robbery and Receiving / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing Under S101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011
Outcome
Visual identification evidence admitted; application granted under s101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011
Legal Topics
Visual Identification Evidence, Evidence Act 2006 S45 Admissibility, Criminal Procedure Act 2011 S101 Pre Trial Rulings, Exclusion for Unfair Prejudice S8 Evidence Act 2006
Criminal Law Evidence Law Visual Identification Evidence Evidence Act 2006 S45 Admissibility Criminal Procedure Act 2011 S101 Pre Trial Rulings Exclusion for Unfair Prejudice S8 Evidence Act 2006

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Paul Peters

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Aggravated Robbery and Receiving / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing Under S101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s45(4)(f) Evidence Act 2006 provides a 'good reason' for not following a formal identification procedure following a chance meeting
  2. 2 Whether the visual identification is unreliable on the balance of probabilities under s45(1) once 'good reason' is established
  3. 3 Whether the identification evidence should be excluded under s8 Evidence Act 2006 because unfair prejudice outweighs probative value

Ratio Decidendi

Section 45(4)(f) applies because the identification arose from a chance meeting; therefore there was 'good reason' not to follow a formal procedure and the onus shifted to the defendant to prove unreliability on the balance of probabilities. The defendant failed to discharge that burden: despite some inconsistencies and minor conflation with a guilty co-offender, the witness had sufficient opportunity to observe, produced a contemporaneous photograph, and the identification is supported by corroborative circumstantial evidence. Any prejudice is minimal and outweighed by probative value. Consequently the visual identification evidence is admissible under s101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Court Disposition

Visual identification evidence admitted; application granted under s101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011

Orders

  • Visual identification evidence admissible at trial under s101 Criminal Procedure Act 2011
  • Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial; publication in law report or law digest permitted