R v NV HC Hamilton CRI-2007-219-335 - [2008] NZHC 2604

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (EXCEPT THE OUTCOME) UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2007-219-335

THE QUEEN

v

NV

Hearing: 18, 19 and 22 September 2008

Appearances: Mr R Douch for Crown
Mr M Robb for Accused

Judgment: 30 September 2008 at 12 noon

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for orders pursuant to s 344A Crimes Act 1961]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2008 at 12 noon, pursuant to
Rule 540(4) of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel:
Mr M Robb, Hamilton

R V NV HC HAM CRI-2007-219-335 30 September 2008

[1] On the evening of 22 September 2007 the police found the body of a deceased person lying in a courtyard at the rear of commercial premises in the central business district of Hamilton. A post-mortem examination subsequently revealed that that person, Mr Lance Kingi, had died of head injuries inflicted some hours earlier.

[2] In the course of their investigation into Mr Kingi’s death the police came to believe that responsibility for Mr Kingi’s death could be attributed to the accused, Mr V. At that time he was just 16 years of age.

[3] On the morning of 10 October 2007 Detective Rolley of the Hamilton Police conducted a lengthy videotaped interview with Mr V at the Hamilton Police Station. Mr V made a number of admissions during that interview. These, together with the evidence of eyewitnesses regarding the events that led to Mr Kingi’s death, persuaded the police that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr V with Mr Kingi’s murder. He has now been committed for trial in this Court. The Crown case at trial will be that Mr V caused Mr Kingi’s death by striking him at least once on the head with a brick at some stage during the evening of 21 September 2007.

[4] Mr V now challenges the admissibility of the videotaped interview. He contends that Detective Rolley conducted the interview in breach of Mr V’s rights under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (“the Act”). As a result, he contends that the Court should rule the interview inadmissible at his trial.

[5] In order to understand the issues that the present application raises, it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the events leading up to the interview.

The events leading up to the interview

[6] Following the discovery of Mr Kingi’s body the police carried out enquiries to establish who may have been in the area in which the body was discovered during the course of the previous evening. As a result, they discovered that the general area had been frequented on that evening by a large number of young persons.

[7] Mr V was amongst the people who had been seen in the area. The police also learned that he may have been involved in an assault on another person on that…

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 NV HC Hamilton CRI-2007-219-335

Details

AGLC: R v NV HC Hamilton CRI-2007-219-335 [2008] NZHC 2604
Case: [2008] NZHC 2604
Decision Date: 30 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v NV HC Hamilton CRI-2007-219-335 involved a 16-year-old defendant, Mr V, who was charged with the murder of Mr Lance Kingi. Mr V argued that the videotaped police interview conducted with him was inadmissible because it violated his rights under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The central issue in this case was whether Detective Rolley sufficiently explained Mr V's rights in a manner appropriate to Mr V's age, level of understanding, and limited proficiency in English. The court examined various factors, including Mr V's previous interactions with the police and legal system, his performance during the videotaped interview, and expert testimony regarding his language abilities. Ultimately, the court found that Detective Rolley did not adequately explain Mr V's rights, particularly the role of a lawyer, in a way that Mr V could understand. Consequently, the court ruled the videotaped interview inadmissible.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the statutory requirement that enforcement officers must explain a child or young person's rights in language appropriate to their age and level of understanding. The court emphasised that the special protection afforded to children and young persons under the Act necessitated a thorough explanation of their rights. In this case, the language barrier and Mr V's limited understanding of English hindered his ability to comprehend the rights being explained to him. The court found that the detective's efforts, though genuine, were insufficient to ensure that Mr V understood his rights fully. Therefore, the videotaped interview was deemed inadmissible, and the court declared it inadmissible in its entirety under section 344A of the Crimes Act 1961.

Orders