|
R v T & T & O (19 May 2004) HC, Auckland, CRI 2003 092 026865, Wild J
Name: R v T & T & O
Unreported
File number: CRI 2003 092 026865
Date: 19 May 2004
Court: High Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: Wild J
CYPFA: s221, 222, s224
Charge: Murder
Key Title: Nominated person; Reasonable compliance; Admissibility of
statements; Questioning by Police
Summary: Ruling as to admissibility of videotaped evidence sought under s344A Crimes Act 1961; H (14 at time of offence) jointly charged with murder; H’s mother ("N") accompanied H to police station but was not told by Police that they regarded her as the nominated person; at Police station N agreed to be the nominated person but her rights and responsibilities were not explained; N broke down and H’s step-father ("M") took over as nominated person; M not nominated by H; rights and responsibilities explained to M but M and H not given opportunity to discuss matters alone. Rights explained to H but not his right to have a lawyer and a nominated person present during the interview. R v Irwin [1992] 3 NZLR 119; R v K 18.07.02 CA 216/02 discussed; "reasonable compliance"– focus to be on substance rather than form; seriousness of charge a factor in consideration of reasonable compliance; cross-examination of suspect permitted but not berating the suspect or non-acceptance of the suspect’s answers.
Spirit and object of the Act requires adequate protection of young people in police interviews; R v Accused (1991) 7 CRNZ 539 (CA); CYPFA s208(h); need to balance rights of young people against need for law enforcement to be carried out without undue hindrance R v T (1996) 15 FRNZ 705; R v Coleman 15.3.96, High Court, Whangarei T8892/95; Lord v R 3.12.97 Gallen J, HC Wanganui T1618/97 (a 15 year old facing a murder charge). Failure to allow young person to nominate an adult was a pivotal factor in the foregoing authorities (R v K (above); Lord v R (above) applied); R v K distinguishable here but that decision emphasises importance CYPFA places on the young person being given the opportunity to choose the adult who is to support them at interview; meaning of "support" discussed. Must advise accused of the information which stands against them (Lord v R, R v Tawhiti [1993] 3 NZLR 594); H not aware that charge was one of murder until mid-way through interview; Police questioning robust but not overbearing. Held: No substantial compliance here. Breaches when viewed in culmination are fatal to the admissibility of the video interview. The second part of the interview can not be admitted on a "stand alone" basis. (Lord v R).
Decision: Both parts of the video interview are inadmissible.
Top | Home | Publications | Ministry of Justice | Courts | Judiciary | Fines | Fees | Practice Notes | Vacancies | Tribunals | Media Releases | About Judgments | Addresses & Contacts | Disclaimer | newzealand.govt.nz
