New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence act 2006 s45

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2021

DEY v R [2021] NZCA 342

Citation

[2021] NZCA 342
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held there was good reason in the circumstances not to follow a formal identification procedure and, in any event, the Crown proved the reliability of the victim's visual identifications; the trial judge's directions, including the s126 warning and caution about dock identification, were adequate; and the sentencing starting point and the discount for the appellant's mental health and alcohol addiction were within range and not unlawful. Consequently the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
17 Nov 2020

TUFUI v R [2020] NZCA 568

Citation

[2020] NZCA 568
Court

Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred in law by treating the proposed showing of the arrest photographs as a dock identification and by misframing the s8 analysis, but the exclusion produced at most a speculative possibility of a different outcome and not a reasonable possibility such that a miscarriage of justice is established; accordingly convictions stand. Applications by Tapaevalu for extension of time and to adduce fresh sentencing evidence were granted but his appeal against the 17-year minimum sentence was dismissed as not manifestly unjust given his assessed culpability.
17 Jul 2017

CRICHTON v R [2017] NZCA 301

Citation

[2017] NZCA 301
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the police failed to follow a formal identification procedure without good reason and the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances in which the complainant made his identification produced a reliable identification (given delay, witness condition, poor quality/leading CCTV presentation, risk of taint from an apology and emphasis on clothing), the visual identification evidence from July 2016 onwards was inadmissible under s45(2) Evidence Act 2006; a trial judge must confine the s45(2) inquiry to the circumstances of the identification and may not rely on inde…
13 Jul 2017

TE HEI v R [2017] NZCA 299

Citation

[2017] NZCA 299
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring the appeal out of time was granted; the identification evidence (recognition evidence and statements) was admissible; trial counsel's omission to seek a s45 procedure was not a material error given the investigative sequence; the trial Judge's directions were adequate in context and did not produce a material miscarriage of justice; consequently convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
21 Dec 2016

SHEPHERD v R [2016] NZCA 628

Citation

[2016] NZCA 628
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the District Court judge correctly applied s45(2): despite the delay the identification was reliable given the witness's close-range observation, intervening restraint, detailed contemporaneous description, and rapid photomontage identification, and challenges to accuracy are matters for the jury at trial.
22 Jul 2016

WINDERS v R [2016] NZCA 350

Citation

[2016] NZCA 350
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave but dismissed the appeal: it upheld the trial judge's admission of the propensity evidence under s43 because the incidents formed a coherent pattern probative of a tendency to use firearms dangerously and the probative value outweighed prejudice; it held the photo montage qualified as a formal procedure under s45(1) because the 10–24 day delay was reasonable in the investigative context and the montage was fair, so the identification was admissible; and it held the interview statements admissible because there was no causal nexus between the unlawful arrest/detention a…
2 Feb 2016

WAMOANA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 55

Citation

[2016] NZHC 55
Court

High Court

The High Court held the montage met s45(3)(b) because the eight photographs were sufficiently similar in age, ethnicity and facial features so as not to materially predispose witnesses; therefore the formal procedure under s45 was followed and the visual identification evidence is admissible, so the appeal is dismissed.
13 Aug 2010

HARNEY V NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 64/2010

Citation

SC 64/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied s45(1) and s45(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 in finding a 'good reason' for not using a formal identification procedure and in concluding the identification was reliable beyond reasonable doubt.