New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cctv evidence

Legal area

Court

24 May 2022

MCALISTER v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 1247

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1247
Court

High Court

The High Court admitted the further affidavit in the interests of justice, concluded that once personal mitigating factors were accounted for the offending was of moderate gravity, and that a conviction would, by statutory operation (Immigration Act s161), create a real and appreciable risk of deportation and permanent family separation; those consequences were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, so the convictions were quashed and a discharge without conviction was granted under s106 Sentencing Act 2002.
3 Dec 2021

R v TELEFONI [2021] NZHC 3295

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3295
Court

High Court

Applying Taueki bands and analogous case law the offender's culpability fell within band three; a nine year starting point was selected, uplifted by 12 months for the injuring offence and three months for offending while subject to sentence, reduced by 10% for youth, 20% for cultural/background factors and 5% for remorse to 6 years 8 months, then reduced by 2 years 8 months for totality to reach a final sentence of four years' imprisonment for manslaughter to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence with the two year sentence for injuring with intent to be served concurrently; a second…
16 Sept 2020

MCASEY v POLICE [2020] NZHC 2408

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2408
Court

High Court

Close frame‑by‑frame analysis of the CCTV showed the complainant raised and swatted at the torch beam such that the appellant's arm and torch likely struck the complainant's own arm; this created reasonable doubt as to intentional application of force and the prosecution failed to prove assault beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge erred in preferring oral testimony over the direct CCTV evidence and the conviction was quashed.
21 May 2020

FRENCH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZCA 175

Citation

[2020] NZCA 175
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave for a second appeal was declined because the applicant did not show bad faith by police nor establish that the unavailable CCTV footage would, on the balance of probabilities, have been of real assistance to create a reasonable doubt; given the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's and witness evidence and the constable's account that the footage showed an assault, there was no realistic prospect of a different outcome and therefore no miscarriage of justice to justify second‑appeal leave.
21 Apr 2020

MATCHES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZCA 104

Citation

[2020] NZCA 104
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was granted but leave for a second appeal was refused because the proposed appeal does not raise a question of general or public importance and there is no real risk of miscarriage of justice: the District Court and High Court carefully assessed the evidence, including CCTV, made permissible inferences about intent, and no arguable legal error or basis for interference by this Court was identified.
18 Dec 2019

BHULLAR v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2019] NZHC 3397

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3397
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeals because the Authority failed to analyse the contemporaneous CCTV footage and did not determine whether two or more statutory signs of intoxication were observable at a time when the seller could reasonably have observed them; the police failed to prove on the required standard that the purchaser met the statutory definition of intoxication at the time of the sale given the CCTV and unchallenged testimony of the manager.
10 Dec 2019

THOMPSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3241

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3241
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the trial judge's factual findings were open on the evidence of the two constables and Mr Dixon, the appellant failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or error in sentence, the arrest was not unlawful on the material, no relevant CCTV existed and any disclosure deficiency caused no prejudice; accordingly the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
27 Nov 2019

MCGREGOR v R [2019] NZCA 589

Citation

[2019] NZCA 589
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the issues were purely fact‑specific with no general or public importance and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice; the lower courts were entitled to find the lost CCTV would not probably have assisted the defence and to uphold their credibility and factual findings.
1 Oct 2019

PEREZ v R [2019] NZCA 465

Citation

[2019] NZCA 465
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence was not identical across incidents—the clearer CCTV from the Warehouse and subsequent conduct at PAK'nSAVE supported an inference of knowledge for the convictions, so the differing verdicts were logically supportable and not inconsistent.
15 Oct 2018

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 2662

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2662
Court

High Court

The application was declined: SCR r 9(1) does not permit a party to direct that an exhibit be released to an agent; r 11 concerns third-party requests and is not engaged where the agent has not made a request; the correct mechanism for a party unable to attend is to make a written request to the Registrar under r 10 for consideration; s 14 NZBORA does not require wider disclosure. Accordingly the Court refused the order sought.