R v Alsford

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 12/2016

[2016] NZSC 21

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND

GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD

Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ

Counsel:

P D Marshall for the Applicant

J H M Eaton QC for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628). B The issues are:
(i)whether the electricity consumption records were
improperly obtained from the service provider;

(ii)whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and

(iii)whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Applicant Kearney & Co, Christchurch for Respondent

R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2016] NZSC 21 [15 March 2016]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Gregory John Alsford, the Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal regarding the admissibility of electricity consumption records obtained from a service provider. The case involved significant privacy and evidence admissibility issues, particularly in the context of electronic data and its procurement by law enforcement agencies. The primary concern was whether the records were obtained lawfully and, if not, whether their admission would be permissible under specific exceptions to the general rule against admitting improperly obtained evidence. The Court of Appeal had earlier ruled that the evidence was improperly obtained and could not be relied upon, a decision that was now subject to review by the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court centred on three primary concerns. Firstly, the court had to determine whether the electricity consumption records were indeed obtained improperly. Secondly, it was necessary to decide whether the Court of Appeal's ruling that the improperly obtained evidence could not be used was correct. Thirdly, the court needed to consider whether, despite the records being improperly obtained, they should still be admitted under section 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006. This section provides an exception for evidence that has probative value and the prejudicial effect of the evidence does not outweigh that value.

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the legal framework and the procedural history of the case. It concluded that the electricity consumption records were obtained in a manner that violated the privacy rights protected under New Zealand law, thus confirming the Court of Appeal's finding of impropriety. Regarding the exclusion of the evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, affirming that improperly obtained evidence should not be admitted. Finally, concerning the potential admission under section 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act, the court found that the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence outweighed its probative value, thus reinforcing the exclusion of the contested records.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established