Legal Research
Cases
R v Cameron

R v Cameron

Case [2007] NZCA 564 7 December 2007

Admissibility of Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENT OR THE REASONS IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA430/07 [2007] NZCA 564

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL CAMERON

Hearing: 5 November 2007
Court: Ellen France, John Hansen and Heath JJ Counsel: D J Sharp for Appellant
S B Manning for Crown

Judgment: 7 December 2007 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted. B The appeal is dismissed.
COrder prohibiting the publication of this judgment or the reasons in news media or on internet or other publicly accessible database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest
permitted.

R V CAMERON CA CA430/07 7 December 2007

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Para No.

Introduction [1] Background [7] Facts giving rise to murder charge [8] Scenario evidence [13]
The video-taped interview [16] The High Court judgment [25] Fairness of the scenario evidence [46] The admissibility of statements made to the undercover officer – reliability [56] Admissibility of video-taped interview [67] Leave to appeal [73] Result [74]

Introduction

[1] This appeal involves consideration of the use of “scenario” evidence. Scenario evidence derives from an investigative technique used by police in various jurisdictions. A suspect is invited to participate with an undercover police officer in a constructed event designed to simulate criminal activity. During the course of his or her interaction with the police officer, admissions are sought on the suspect’s involvement in a crime under investigation (see: Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 238
ALR 650 at [219] (HCA) per Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ; R v Tofilau (2003)

13 VR 1 at [34] (VSC); Palmer “Applying Swaffield Part II: Fake gangs and induced confessions” (2005) 29 Crim LJ 111 at 112; and see also: R v Christou [1992] 4 All ER 559 (CA)).

[2] In this case, the appellant is charged with the murder of Balwinder Singh. Mr Singh’s remains were discovered in November 2005 in a forest, by two forestry workers. As a result of their inquiries, the police came to the view that Mr Singh had been murdered. The appellant was the prime suspect. An undercover operation of the type described was developed with the intention of drawing the appellant into an

association with a number of undercover officers. The operation involved the appellant participating in simulated criminal activity, during the course of which a number of admissions were made to one of the undercover officers, a man known under the assumed name of “Tony”.

[3] The appellant was subsequently arrested on a warrant for breach of community work. He was cautioned, given his rights and taken to the police station. He was questioned there by police about the homicide and, later, undertook a video-taped interview. During the interview, the appellant admitted being with Mr Singh and said that he had “just pulled…

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 [2007] NZCA 564
Case: [2007] NZCA 564
Decision Date: 7 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal involves consideration of the use of "scenario" evidence in the criminal process. The appellant is charged with the murder of Balwinder Singh. He challenges the admissibility of statements he made to an undercover police officer, to police officers, and in a video-taped interview. The High Court found some of the statements were admissible and some were not. The appellant sought leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal granted leave and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the admissibility of the statements made to the undercover officer and in the video-taped interview. The Court was satisfied that the statements were not obtained in circumstances that were likely to adversely affect their reliability and that they were properly obtained in accordance with the law. The Court also considered whether there was a breach of the appellant's rights to silence and to a lawyer. The Court concluded that there were breaches of those rights but that they did not affect the admissibility of the statements. Finally, the Court considered the fairness of the "scenario" technique and whether it should only be used as a last resort. The Court concluded that it was not unfair for the police to use the technique at the stage in the investigation when they did.

Orders