Graham v The Queen

The case of Graham v The Queen involves a dispute over the admissibility of evidence obtained through an unlawful search conducted by police at the appellant's residence. The search was based on information provided by a former girlfriend of the appellant, who had accessed his electronically stored property, including his cellphone, computer, and DVD collections. The informant shared some of these images with the complainant, who subsequently reported the matter to the police. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained during the search was admissible under s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006, which prohibits the use of improperly obtained evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the evidence was obtained fairly, or if it was obtained in consequence of a breach of any enactment or rule of law by a person to whom section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies.

The court, in delivering its judgment, found that the informant had breached the appellant's privacy by accessing his electronically stored property without his consent. The informant admitted that she had "spied" on the appellant and had violated his privacy by accessing his personal items. The court further held that the informant's actions were a breach of the appellant's rights under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. As such, the court found that the evidence obtained during the search was improperly obtained and inadmissible under s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006. The court further found that the evidence was obtained unfairly, as the informant had breached the appellant's privacy without his consent.

As a result of the court's decision, the evidence obtained during the unlawful search was excluded from the trial. The court's decision was based on the finding that the informant's actions were a breach of the appellant's rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that the evidence obtained as a result of these actions was improperly obtained and inadmissible. The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting individuals' privacy and rights, and the need for law enforcement to obtain evidence in a lawful and fair manner. The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained during the unlawful search was inadmissible and could not be used against the appellant in the trial.