Legal Research
Cases
R v Cameron

R v Cameron

Case [2009] NZCA 87 24 March 2009

Criminal Liability

Murder

Admissibility of Evidence

Scenario Evidence

Unreliable Statements

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA568/2008
[2009] NZCA 87
THE QUEEN
v
PAUL JOSEPH CAMERON
Hearing:3 March 2009

Court:William Young P, Hammond and Robertson JJ
Counsel:D J Sharp and R T Hovell for Appellant

S B Manning and D M Kerr for Crown

Judgment:24 March 2009 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
Introduction
[1]       The appellant, Mr Cameron, was convicted on one count that on 31 October 1993 he murdered Balwinder Singh. The conviction was entered on 15 February 2008 in the High Court at Gisborne, and Mr Cameron was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Background
[2]       Mr Singh was reported missing at the end of October 1993. Before his disappearance, Mr Singh had been in a relationship with Mr Cameron’s mother. Mr Singh, through that connection, was known to Mr Cameron.
[3]       In October 1993, Mr Cameron and a man called David Koia were growing cannabis in the Wharerata Forest, south-west of Gisborne. The two men planned to go to the forest to tend to their respective plots and arranged to meet in Gisborne. Mr Koia said that when Mr Cameron arrived, Mr Singh was with him. Mr Koia knew Mr Singh but he was not expecting to see him on that occasion.
[4]       The three men then drove into the forest. Mr Koia went to look after his plot, while Mr Cameron and Mr Singh went in a different direction. Mr Cameron was carrying a bag which contained a rifle. Approximately half an hour later, when Mr Koia was returning to the car, he heard two loud bangs. The Crown case was that the noise that Mr Koia heard was gunshots from Mr Cameron shooting Mr Singh.
[5]       Shortly after these noises were heard, Mr Cameron returned to the car. Mr Singh was not with him. Mr Cameron was agitated, and told Mr Koia to “just drive” when questioned about Mr Singh’s whereabouts.
[6]       Mr Singh’s skeletal remains were found in the forest in November 2005, by forestry workers. As a result of their inquiries, the police received information from relatives and acquaintances of Mr Cameron which tended to suggest that he had had something to do with Mr Singh’s disappearance and death.
[7]       On 27 January 2006, Mr Cameron was interviewed by Detective Pepere about Mr Singh’s disappearance. In the course of that interview, Mr Cameron was shown a photograph of Mr Singh. He said he had never seen the man in the photograph, although later in the interview he admitted that his mother had an Indian boyfriend. He accepted that he had spoken to family members, a former partner and a pastor about a shooting incident that occurred in the forest where he had a cannabis plot. He said, “We went to grab a plot and there was gunfire going off all over the place and this guy we’ve never heard from him since”. The statement, which Detective Pepere…

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 R v Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2009] NZCA 87
Case: [2009] NZCA 87
Decision Date: 24 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeal against the conviction of Mr Paul Joseph Cameron for the murder of Balwinder Singh, ruling that the appeal against conviction was without merit. The central issue in the case was the admissibility of the scenario evidence, which involved an undercover police officer posing as a criminal to elicit admissions from Mr Cameron regarding his involvement in the crime. The Court found the scenario evidence to be reliable and admissible under the Evidence Act 2006, dismissing the arguments that the evidence was unreliable, influenced by oppression, or improperly obtained. The Court further held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable given the substantial evidence pointing to Mr Cameron's guilt, including his admissions to various individuals and his presence at the scene with a rifle. The overwhelming evidence indicated that Mr Cameron shot Mr Singh, and the Court found no reasonable doubt as to his intent, thus affirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

Orders