R v Kaur

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-092-8750

[2015] NZHC 2538

THE QUEEN

v

AMANDEEP KAUR

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

N Walker for Crown

J R F Anderson for Defendant

Judgment:

15 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 October 2015 at 11 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:

R v KAUR [2015] NZHC 2538 [15 October 2015]

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

[1] Counsel for Mrs Kaur has filed an application seeking orders as to the admissibility of a discussion between the two defendants that was videotaped by the police. A challenge by Mrs Kaur’s co-defendant has already been heard and declined by Brewer J.1 An appeal against that decision is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 20 October 2015. Mrs Kaur wishes to be party to that appeal.

[2]For the reasons given by Brewer J, I rule the evidence admissible.

Lang J

1 R v Singh [2015] NZHC 1848.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Kaur was heard on the papers. The defendant, Amandeep Kaur, was charged in relation to an incident occurring in 2014. The Crown sought to admit evidence of a videotaped discussion between the defendant and her co-defendant, which had been recorded by the police. Kaur objected to the admissibility of this evidence, while her co-defendant had already unsuccessfully challenged its admissibility before Brewer J. Kaur sought to join the appeal against Brewer J's ruling, which was scheduled for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 20 October 2015.

The legal issue before the court was the admissibility of the videotaped discussion between Kaur and her co-defendant. Kaur argued that the evidence should be excluded on the basis of breach of her right to silence and right to a fair trial, as enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence was relevant and should be admitted, as it pertained to the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's state of mind. The court needed to determine whether the evidence should be admitted, and if so, whether Kaur's rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 were violated.

Lang J ruled that the evidence was admissible, following the reasoning of Brewer J in R v Singh [2015] NZHC 1848. Lang J held that the evidence was relevant to the defendant's state of mind and intent, and that the admission of the evidence did not infringe on Kaur's rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. The judge found that the recording was made in circumstances that did not violate the defendant's rights, and that any potential prejudice to the defendant was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Kaur's application for orders as to the admissibility of the evidence was therefore declined.

The court made an order that the videotaped discussion between Kaur and her co-defendant was admissible as evidence in the trial. Kaur was granted leave to be a party to the appeal against Brewer J's ruling, which was due to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 20 October 2015. The court also reiterated the order prohibiting the publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings, including the result, in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established