R v Petricevich

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Michelle Petricevic, challenged the ruling by Judge Harvey that evidence obtained through text messages sent from a police detective's cellphone should be admissible at her trial. The appellant faces charges of possessing cannabis with intent to supply and offering to sell the drug. The central legal issue was whether the evidence obtained via the cellphone was unfairly or improperly obtained, and if so, whether it should be excluded from the trial. The appellant argued that the use of the cellphone without the owner's consent constituted unfair treatment and that the deception involved rendered the prosecution inappropriate. The Crown contended that the police conduct did not amount to entrapment or misconduct warranting exclusion of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 were not engaged as the complaint was about police conduct rather than the rights of the appellant. The evidence obtained was relevant and probative, and the Court had to consider whether its admission was fair. The Court held that while the use of the cellphone was wrongful, it did not render the evidence unfairly obtained. The Court noted that undercover operations inherently involve deception and that the police conduct in this case did not amount to misconduct requiring the evidence to be excluded. The Court concluded that the evidence was admissible as it was fundamental to the prosecution, and excluding it would not be proportionate to the degree of impropriety.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in Judge Harvey's ruling to admit the evidence. The judgment also included an order restricting its publication until the final disposition of the trial.