Paul Joseph Cameron v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 54/2009
[2009] NZSC 90
PAUL JOSEPH CAMERON
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:D J Sharp for Applicant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:12 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1] The applicant was convicted of murder. Part of the Crown case was what is called “scenario evidence”, whereby a context is established to provide an incentive for a suspect to confess to a crime and a confession results. Mr Cameron does not seek to challenge the legality of that investigative technique or the general admissibility of evidence so derived. What the applicant does claim is that the evidence should have been excluded under s 28 of the Evidence Act 2006 as unreliable, or under s 29 as having been influenced by oppression, or under s 30 as having been improperly obtained.
[2] These are however questions of fact, which are the subject of concurrent findings against Mr Cameron in the High Court[1] and on two occasions (pre-trial and post-conviction) in the Court of Appeal.[2] No question of public or general importance arises and there is no appearance of any miscarriage of justice.
[1]R v Cameron (unreported, High Court, Gisborne, CRI-2006-016-3325, Venning J, 10 August 2007).
[2]R v Cameron [2007] NZCA 564 (CA430/07, 7 December 2007); R v Cameron [2009] NZCA 87 (CA568/08, 24 March 2009).
Solicitors:
Burnard Bull & Co, Gisborne for Applicant
Crown Law, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Paul Joseph Cameron, sought leave to appeal his conviction for murder against the Crown. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with Justices Blanchard, McGrath, and Wilson presiding. The applicant's primary contention was that the evidence, which was obtained through the use of a "scenario evidence" technique, should have been excluded on the grounds of unreliability, oppression, or improper acquisition. This technique involves establishing a context to encourage a suspect to confess, and the applicant argued that the evidence in question should have been excluded under sections 28, 29, and 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

The legal issues at hand revolved around the admissibility of the scenario evidence and whether it should have been excluded based on the grounds mentioned by the applicant. The Court had to determine if there was a basis for the applicant's claims under the specified sections of the Act, and if the evidence should have been excluded due to unreliability, oppression, or improper acquisition. The Court also had to consider whether the findings of fact made by the High Court and the Court of Appeal were correct and if there was any appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court found that the issues raised were questions of fact that had already been determined against the applicant by the High Court and the Court of Appeal on multiple occasions. The Court held that no question of public or general importance arose and there was no appearance of any miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld. The Court concluded that the findings of fact made by the lower courts were correct and that there was no basis for the applicant's claims under sections 28, 29, and 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established