R v Harland

[2017] NZHC 900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-9435 [2017] NZHC 900

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN JAMES HARLAND

Hearing:	5 May 2017
Appearances:	S L McColgan and K Ashton for Crown R Harrison for Defendant
Ruling:	5 May 2017

PRE-TRIAL RULING NO.1 OF FOGARTY J [ADMISSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION]

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Auckland

Copy:

R Harrison, Blenheim

R v HARLAND [2017] NZHC 900 [5 May 2017]

Result

[1]      I have decided that the intercepted communication, which the Crown seek to admit where the defendant is discussing with his brother the acquisition of sausages is admissible.  I am going to give my reasons in a judgment to be delivered.  I have decided I cannot adequately do that in an oral judgment, but that is the outcome. The reasons should appear within about 24 hours.

[2]      Cognizant of that, Mr Harrison has confirmed that he will call two additional witnesses, his client’s brother Mr Michael Harland who was the other person in the intercepted telephone conversation, and Mr Benjamin Howard, who was the third person being referred to in the intercepted communication.   To be sure that those witnesses will be present at the trial I confirm that Mr Harrison or his solicitors will arrange for summonses to be filed with the Registrar for completion which will summons these two men on the appropriate date.

[3]      I  leave  the  details  of  the  summons  to  Mr  Harrison,  but  agree  with  his observation that the two men will need to be travelling on the Tuesday and may need to produce the summons as the obligation to attend, to their respective employers and it is likely they will give evidence on the Wednesday.  This timetable has been confirmed by Mr McColgan, for the Crown.