For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA108/2009
CA112/2009 [2009] NZCA 303
THE QUEEN
v
PATRICK SHAUN EDMONDS JOSHUA WINIATA KEIL
Hearing: 7 May 2009
Court: Glazebrook, Potter and Asher JJ Counsel: T M Petherick for Mr Edmonds
R Philip for Mr Keil
J M Jelas for Crown Judgment: 14 July 2009 at 12.30 pm Reasons for Judgment: 20 July 2009 at 4.00 pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.
BOrder prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings in news media or on internet or other publicly available
R V EDMONDS And Anor CA CA108/2009 [14 July 2009]
database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law
digest permitted.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Glazebrook J)
Table of Contents
Para No
An attack at a Mongrel Mob pad [1] Background [8] Before the attack [8] The attack [11] The victim’s evidence about the attack [13] After the attack [15] Police investigation [17]
Mr Biddle’s prior knowledge of the accused [20] Mrs Biddle’s evidence [25] The positions of Mr Edmonds and Mr Keil [26] The legislation [28] Some general comments on s 45 [33] Does recognition evidence fall within the scope of s 45? [37] High Court judgment [37] Our assessment [38]
Was there good reason not to conduct a formal identification
procedure in terms of any of the circumstances set out in s 45(4)? [39]
High Court judgment [39] Does s 45(4)(d) apply? [41] Does s 45(4)(e) apply? [48]
Was the fact that Mr Biddle recognised the alleged perpetrators
good reason not to conduct a formal identification procedure? [53]
The High Court decision [53] Submissions of the Crown [57] Submissions for the appellants [60] Issues [61] Is the list of factors in s 45(4) exhaustive? [62] Should recognition evidence be an added good reason under
s 45(4) for not conducting a formal identification procedure? [65]
Was there a good reason for not conducting a formal procedure
in this case? [75] Was Dobson J correct in his s 45(2) assessment? [79] The High Court judgment [80] Submissions for Mr Edmonds [85] Submissions for Mr Keil [90] Crown submissions [94] Issues [99]
Should reliability be measured by reference to the degree of
compliance with the formal identification procedures in s 43(3)? [100] What is meant by a “reliable identification” in s 45(2)? [102] What is meant by “the circumstances in which the identification
was made” in s 45(2)? [109]
Should witness confidence be taken into account in assessing
reliability? [116]
Did Dobson J err in considering that the Crown had proved
reliability in terms of s 45(2)? [121] Summary [129] The legal position [129] The law as…
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 Edmonds
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Edmonds [2009] NZCA 303
Case
[2009] NZCA 303
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Edmonds involved an appeal against the decision of Dobson J, who ruled that the evidence of a witness, Mr Biddle, identifying the appellants as the alleged attackers was admissible. The appellants argued that a formal identification procedure, as set out in s 45(3) of the Evidence Act 2006, should have been conducted and that there was no good reason not to do so. The Court of Appeal agreed that the recognition evidence falls within the scope of s 45 of the Evidence Act and that the list of factors in s 45(4) is not exhaustive. The Court also held that the fact that a witness recognises an alleged offender could constitute a good reason not to conduct a formal identification procedure, but this should not always be the case. In this case, the Court of Appeal concluded that there was good reason not to conduct a formal identification procedure, as it would have served no useful purpose and could have been counter-productive. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was to be determined under s 45(1) of the Evidence Act. The Court prohibited the publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial.