R v Jiang

[2018] NZHC 2913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2018-042-758 [2018] NZHC 2913

THE QUEEN

v

BIN JIANG

Hearing(AVL):	9 November 2018
Counsel:	J M Webber for Crown A J D Bamford and E J Riddell for the Defendant
Oral Judgment:	9 November 2018

ORALJUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J (ADMISSIBILITY)

[1]      This case involves a hearsay application made by the Crown. What was sought was an order that statements made by the deceased were admissible at the trial of the defendant, Mr Bin Jiang. These statements related to two broadly different areas:

(a)      the first area involved voice recordings made on a system known as WeChat which is apparently a messaging app that is popular in China. There were messages between the deceased and her brother; and

(b)the second issue related to alleged hearsay statements in the draft brief of evidence of the son of the deceased and the defendant, Mike Jiang.

R v JIANG [2018] NZHC 2913 [9 November 2018]

[2]      In memoranda filed prior to this hearing, both the Crown and the defendant had modified their respective positions indicating that some matters that were initially proposed to be covered by the Crown, and some matters that the defence initially took objection to were no longer an issue.

[3]      In the course of oral argument this morning, it now appears that there has been substantial agreement to the extent that no formal ruling on admissibility is required other than in respect of one point. This relates to [19] in the draft brief of evidence of Mike Jiang, and in particular the defence’s concern was that if the evidence portrayed a pattern of complaints by the deceased about actions of the defendant that would be unfair.  But Mr Bamford, for the defendant, conceded that with the exclusion of [19], the material presently set out in draft paragraphs [22] and [23] would be suitable.

Mr Webber has indicated that Crown is likely to modify its position accordingly.  I simply record that but do not make any direction that Mr Webber do that given his indication that is proposed to happen.

Outcome

[4]      On the basis of the modification by the Crown of its position, the defence withdraws  its  objection  to  the  admissibility of  the  proposed  evidence  and  it  is accordingly ruled admissible.

[5]      On a separate topic, the issue of an interpreter has been canvassed for various valid reasons.  Mr Bamford is not in a position to express a concluded view but it seems that at least possible that a German speaking interpreter may be required and that is likely to be particularly so should ultimately the defendant elect to give evidence. As soon as the defence is in a position to advise on the issue of an interpreter, the Registry official should be alerted accordingly.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Nelson for Crown

Bamford Law, Nelson for the Defendant