28 Jul 2023
Leave to appeal was granted because the issues concerning whether the photographic evidence was improperly obtained and whether it was nonetheless admissible under s 30 raise questions of law and fact warranting determination by this Court.
9 May 2023
The Court held that the police officer's taking and retention of close-up identification photographs during the traffic stop amounted to a 'search' for the purposes of s21 BORA and was unreasonable because it lacked statutory authorisation, was not in the context of an active investigation against the subject, and breached information privacy principles. Despite that impropriety the Evidence Act s30 balancing exercise favoured admission of the photographs because the intrusion was modest, the impropriety was not deliberate or in bad faith, and the evidence was important to an effective justic…
8 Apr 2022
Detective's after‑care comments were unwise and risky but did not render the defendant's waiver of counsel ineffective nor causatively produce the admissions; the second interview was admissible; the trial judge's directions on proof beyond reasonable doubt and on the immunised witness were adequate and not misleading; the minimum periods and sentences were within the available range; no miscarriage of justice occurred and appeals dismissed.
29 Oct 2021
Exemption in r 1.8 applied because parking on the flush median was reasonably necessary to execute the police checkpoint safely; there was no sufficient causal connection between the checkpoint set-up and the subsequent stop and breath testing to render the evidence improperly obtained; alternatively, even if evidence were improperly obtained, exclusion under s 30 would not be proportionate given the minor impropriety and public safety considerations; appeal dismissed and conviction upheld.
12 Aug 2021
Counsel's failure to advise the appellant of the viable legal challenge to the warrantless s20 searches deprived her of the opportunity to contest unlawfully obtained evidence; the ground searches were unlawful because s20 prerequisites were not met and there were no reasonable grounds for immediate warrantless entry; the unlawfully obtained physical evidence and contemporaneous admissions were inadmissible under s30 Evidence Act 2006; the guilty pleas therefore produced a miscarriage of justice and the convictions were quashed with no retrial directed.
10 Mar 2021
The Henare affidavit was rejected as not fresh in context and lacking credibility and cogency; the Putt hearsay statement was properly admitted because formal contemporaneous statement and indicia of reliability outweighed potential prejudice; Kamoto's propensity evidence had low probative value but its admission did not produce a miscarriage of justice; Solomon's police statement was voluntary and admissible; prosecutor's comment was permissible; the judge's directions on intent and the composite question trail were adequate in context — accordingly both appeals dismissed and application to…
5 Mar 2020
The High Court confirmed the District Court: MSD did not apply an unlawful blanket policy, investigators had reasonable grounds to invoke the Code's 'prejudice to the maintenance of the law' exception in the particular circumstances, the s11 evidence was not improperly obtained and, even if improperly obtained, exclusion was not proportionate under Evidence Act s30(2)(b) because intrusion was limited, conduct was not in bad faith, the evidence was reliable and the offending was of sufficient seriousness to favour admission.
20 Feb 2019
The court held there was no tenable defence: documentary records showed the appellant had been advised of his rights repeatedly and the objective records contradicted his account about timing of the call; any impropriety was minimal and unlikely to lead to exclusion under s30; trial counsel acted reasonably in advising guilty plea based on available records; therefore no miscarriage of justice and appeal dismissed.
31 Jul 2018
Propensity evidence admitted did not materially differ from pre-trial descriptions and, with careful directions, did not produce miscarriage; the police interview had been ruled admissible on pre-trial appeal and absent any material change in facts or law the Court will not relitigate that ruling on conviction appeal (any further challenge must go to the Supreme Court); juror concerns were minor and appropriately handled by the judge without creating prejudice; factual findings established calculated planning so s104(1)(b) applied and the 17-year minimum was required; the NZBORA breach did no…
28 May 2018
Portions of the 2015 police interview (third and fourth phases) breached the Practice Note by amounting to cross‑examination through repetitive, challenging and editorial questioning; those portions were unfairly obtained under s30 and their admission — together with highly prejudicial editorial comment and an inflammatory outburst by the complainant's father — created prejudice not cured by the judge's directions, resulting in a miscarriage of justice; appeal therefore allowed, conviction quashed and retrial directed; application to adduce fresh expert evidence on appeal declined for lack of…