R v Machirus

The case of R v Machirus involves the appeal by the defendant, Peter Lloyd Machirus, against a ruling made by Judge MacAskill in the District Court. Machirus faces a substantial number of charges for receiving and conspiring to receive in relation to an alleged large-scale burglary and receiving ring in Christchurch. The appeal concerns the admissibility of certain incriminating evidence obtained during a search of a house and garage. The trial was aborted due to the defendant's ill health and is scheduled to recommence on 30 July 2007. The Court of Appeal was required to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained through warrantless searches and whether the consent given by Ms Ann Pelenato, the defendant's sister, was valid.

The Court of Appeal found that the defendant's appeal points were not well-founded. First, the Court found that it was open to the District Court Judge to conclude that the police officers had obtained separate and relevant consents for their searches. Second, the Court upheld the District Court Judge's finding that Ms Pelenato was a de facto occupier of the property and, therefore, had the authority to give consent for the searches. Lastly, the Court dismissed the defendant's argument that the police had a duty to inform Ms Pelenato of her right to refuse consent and the possible consequences of a search. The appeal was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted.

The Court of Appeal's decision maintains the ruling of the District Court regarding the admissibility of the incriminating evidence obtained through warrantless searches. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that there has not been a miscarriage of justice, but found that the defendant's appeal points were not persuasive. The Court also expressed concern about the extent of the search of a vehicle parked on the property, but noted that it had no direct application to the charges in this case.