New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Chain of custody

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2020

ALLEN v R [2020] NZCA 596

Citation

[2020] NZCA 596
Court

Court of Appeal

The recall application is declined because the applicant failed to establish the exceptional grounds required for recall: the certificate was not shown to be crucially defective given the analyst personally received the exhibits, the defence had a formal admission that the material was cannabis, the chain of custody and analyst evidence supported the result, and alternative remedies exist; therefore no miscarriage of justice warranting recall was demonstrated.
19 Nov 2019

R v LE BRETON [2019] NZHC 3016

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3016
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal under s 215 was granted and the appeal allowed: because the loss of the note involved no bad faith, and because the original note would not probably have been of real benefit to the defence (could not explain the unexplained counter fingerprint, other-fingerprint theories could be advanced without the original, and handwriting analysis was not shown to require the original), exclusion was disproportionate and the fingerprint evidence is admissible.
9 Oct 2018

LUNDY v R [2018] NZCA 410

Citation

[2018] NZCA 410
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the mRNA (messenger RNA) evidence inadmissible because it lacked sufficient independent validation, peer review, standards, known error rates and general scientific acceptance to be reliably put to a jury on a highly technical issue; the IHC evidence was admissible because multiple independent neuropathologists replicated and corroborated the results and methodological concerns had been addressed; notwithstanding exclusion of mRNA evidence the Court applied the proviso to s385(1) and dismissed the appeal because, on the remaining admissible evidence (CNS tissue established by I…
7 Dec 2017

MABEE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZCA 570

Citation

[2017] NZCA 570
Court

Court of Appeal

The proposed grounds were without merit: the doctor’s s75 certificate and the statutory authorisation in s69 justified police presence and detention; any failure to specify laboratory or notify the Commissioner under s74(4) was technical and cured by s64(2) because the specimen was delivered to an approved laboratory and untampered; consequently there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice and leave to bring a second appeal was declined.
15 Oct 2014

R v LUNDY [2014] NZHC 2527

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2527
Court

High Court

The court held that the Crown had established sufficient reliability under s25 to admit DNA profiling and IHC evidence that the stains are CNS tissue, and by a narrow margin admitted the NFI RNA organ-typing (brainplex) evidence for specimen 3003/3 as a credible extension of validated methods, but excluded all FISH evidence and certain IHC assertions as unreliable; chain of custody and contamination concerns did not require exclusion of the admitted scientific evidence; uncertainties must be addressed by expert testimony and jury directions.
9 Aug 2013

CAMPBELL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2013] NZHC 1989 [8 August 2013]

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1989
Court

High Court

The A sample certificate complied with reg 143 and was admissible; the B sample analysis confirmed carboxy-THC at 45 μg/L which exceeds the confirmatory AS/NZS 4308:2008 cut-off of 15 μg/L and is therefore a 'positive'/'detected' result; identifiers and documentary evidence established the chain of custody for the samples; no procedural unfairness or material doubt justified overturning the Visiting Justice's disciplinary finding, so the judicial review application is dismissed.
30 Aug 2011

LAUREN DODGSON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE COA CA124/2011

Citation

COA CA124/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that whether the blood analysed was the defendant's and taken at the relevant time is a factual question for the prosecution to prove by appropriate evidence; a s75 certificate remains sufficient evidence absent proof to the contrary and counsel's unaccepted questions revealing a witness's ignorance do not amount to proof to the contrary, so the proposed grounds had no arguable prospect of success.

New Zealand Case Law

ALLEN v R [2020] NZCA 596

R v LE BRETON [2019] NZHC 3016

LUNDY v R [2018] NZCA 410

MABEE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZCA 570

R v LUNDY [2014] NZHC 2527

CAMPBELL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2013] NZHC 1989 [8 August 2013]

LAUREN DODGSON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE COA CA124/2011