R v Rehu - [2015] NZHC 303

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 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

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-087-0603

[2015] NZHC 303

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN MAIHANA REHU

Hearing: 3 February 2015 (final submissions received 23 February 2015)

Counsel:

G C Hollister-Jones for Crown R Plunket for defendant

Judgment:

27 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 February 2015 at 12:00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Counsel: R Plunket, Barrister, Whakatane

R v REHU [2015] NZHC 303 [27 February 2015]

Introduction

[1] Steven Rehu has been charged with raping a seven or eight year old girl sometime between July 2006 and July 2007, when he was 15 or 16 years old. He is now 23. Mr Rehu is also charged with indecently assaulting two other girls approximately one week after the first incident. One complainant was aged five or six at the time of the alleged offending and the other was aged about seven.

[2] When interviewed by a police detective on 27 March 2014, Mr Rehu denied, in a second DVD interview, raping any of the complainants, but admitted conduct that would constitute indecent assault in relation to each complainant.

[3] The Crown applies for Mr Rehu’s second DVD interview to be ruled admissible for the purposes of his upcoming trial. Mr Rehu opposes that course and says that the statement should be ruled inadmissible.

[4] The key issue I must determine is whether Mr Rehu’s statement was improperly obtained in terms of s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 (“Act”), because he was not given the opportunity to exercise his right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay, as provided for by s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). If so, would the exclusion of his statement be proportionate to the degree of impropriety?

[5] In the alternative, counsel for Mr Rehu submitted that his statement should be excluded on the basis that it was made in circumstances that give rise to concerns regarding its reliability, in terms of s 28(2) of the Act.

[6] Determination of these issues largely turns on my factual findings as to what happened during the “missing hour” between an initial police DVD interview (which concluded when Mr Rehu asked to see a lawyer) and a subsequent DVD interview (in which Mr Rehu waived his right to a lawyer and confessed to at least part of the alleged offending).

Background

The alleged offending

[7] There are three complainants, who I will refer to as “A”, “B” and “C”. The alleged offending occurred on a rural property. B lived with her parents in a…

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 Rehu

Details

AGLC: R v Rehu [2015] NZHC 303
Case: [2015] NZHC 303
Decision Date: 27 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Steven Rehu, has been charged with raping a 7 or 8 year old girl and indecently assaulting two other girls, aged 5 or 6 and 7 years old. The Crown applied for Mr Rehu's second DVD interview to be ruled admissible for the purposes of his upcoming trial, while Mr Rehu opposed this course and said that the statement should be ruled inadmissible. The key issue the court had to determine was whether Mr Rehu's statement was improperly obtained in terms of s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006, because he was not given the opportunity to exercise his right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay, as provided for by s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court found that Mr Rehu's statement was improperly obtained and the exclusion of his statement is proportionate to the impropriety. The court ruled that Mr Rehu's second video statement is inadmissible at his trial. The court also made an order prohibiting publication of this 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.

Orders