R v Pawa

In the matter of the Crown versus Chez Alexander Pawa, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against the ruling of the District Court which admitted the appellant's interview with Detective Page. The appellant sought an order that the interview be ruled inadmissible on the basis that the questioning was unfair, overbearing and intrusive. The Crown argued that the questions were asked in good faith and any ambiguity in the form of the questions was a matter for the jury to assess. The Court had to decide whether the detective's questions were unfair, overbearing or intrusive and if they provided a foundation for the questions he asked.

The Court agreed with Mr Hogan, who appeared for Mr Pawa, that the form of the questions asked by Detective Page could have been more succinct and pointed. However, questioning in that form is by no means uncommon, and juries are likely to be well accustomed to questions in that form and to interpreting answers. The Court also agreed that the way the detective used the personal pronoun "you" often failed to distinguish between the singular and the plural, but the appropriate meaning can usually be distilled from the transcript. The Court took the view that the transcript did not show that the method of questioning adopted was unfair, overbearing or intrusive. The transcript showed Mr Pawa was able to express his version of events and that he sought explanations from the detective if he could not understand the question. The Court held that the detective's knowledge of what had occurred was sufficient to provide a foundation for the questions he asked.

The Court dismissed the appeal against the District Court ruling admissible the appellant’s interview with Detective Page on 7 November 2005. An order was made prohibiting publication of this judgment or the reasons therefor in the news media or on the internet or in any other publicly accessible database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.