Crawford v Police - [2018] NZHC 407

FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-Ō-MARU ROHE

CRI-2017-476-000013 [2018] NZHC 407

RICHARD ARTHUR JAMES CRAWFORD

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 23 February 2018

Appearances:

T Jackson for Appellant

A R McRae for Respondent

Judgment:

14 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

Introduction

[1] This appeal is concerned with the admissibility of evidence obtained by the Police by a simple but effective investigatory “trick”. It led to the appellant confessing that he had anonymously ordered a Domino’s pizza order without paying, sent to an unwitting and unwilling recipient, who had already been upset by fictitious and anonymous orders directed to her address.1

1 Police v Crawford [2017] NZDC 25817.

CRAWFORD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 407 [14 March 2018]

[2] The “trick” involved use of a “telecommunications device” to send an email text from the Police computer to the appellant’s cell phone which induced his reply, giving his address. The email text probably constituted an offence in itself, the same offence on which the appellant was convicted in the District Court, as it involved a fictitious representation.

[3] In the District Court, and now on appeal, the issue is whether the confession the Police elicited from Mr Crawford was admissible, given the investigatory trick.

Background

[4] Mr Crawford used a mobile phone to telephone Domino’s Pizza and ordered two pizzas and a garlic bread, giving the complainant’s address for delivery. The complainant has been the victim of a number of such ‘prank orders’, including a more serious occasion when a taxi was ordered, on instructions to take her to the hospital. There is no proof the appellant was responsible for those other incidents. On the present occasion, the complainant decided enough was enough and involved the Police.

[5] When she declined the pizza order at her door, she was given the mobile phone number from which the order was made. She tried calling the number without success in identifying the person whose phone it was. She made a complaint to the Police, providing them with the number. The sergeant tried calling the number several times to no avail. He ran the number through Police systems, but could not identify who it belonged to as the phone number was not known to Police systems. Then he sent the following text:

Thanks for your continued support. You are the winner of two Movie Max 5 session passes to be used by 12/6/17. Text your name and address for the passes to be posted to you.

[6] The appellant immediately replied with his name and address. One evening in the next few days the sergeant drove past the address and noticed there were lights on. He knocked on the door and spoke to the appellant and his father. He said he was enquiring about a fictitious pizza order, and cautioned him. The appellant denied any knowledge of such an order.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Crawford v Police

Details

AGLC: Crawford v Police [2018] NZHC 407
Case: [2018] NZHC 407
Decision Date: 14 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Crawford v Police, the appellant, Richard Arthur James Crawford, appealed against his conviction in the District Court for improperly obtained evidence under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. The appeal centred on the admissibility of a confession Mr Crawford made after being tricked by a police officer into revealing his identity. The police officer had sent a deceptive text message to Mr Crawford's phone, falsely informing him that he had won a prize and needed to provide his address. In response, Mr Crawford revealed his address and subsequently confessed to the police when they visited him at home.

The High Court of New Zealand, in considering the appeal, had to determine whether the confession was properly admitted into evidence, given the deceptive means by which it was obtained. The court assessed the admissibility under the balancing test prescribed by section 30 of the Evidence Act, which requires the court to weigh the impropriety of obtaining evidence against the need for an effective and credible system of justice. The court considered factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the impropriety, and whether there were alternative investigatory techniques available.

The court found that the evidence was indeed improperly obtained because the police had breached the law by sending a deceptive message. However, the key issue was whether excluding the evidence was proportionate to the impropriety. The court concluded that the confession was closely linked to the police officer's unlawful actions, and excluding it was a proportionate response. The court emphasized that while the offence was minor, allowing the use of deceptive tactics by police to obtain evidence could undermine the integrity of the justice system. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Orders