R v Ritchie CA284/04

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from a ruling made by Judge Jaine in the District Court at Christchurch, which admitted evidence of statements made by the appellant, Darryn Grant Ritchie, during a police search of his home. The appellant argued that the evidence should be excluded due to alleged breaches of Judges' Rules 2 and 9. The Court of Appeal found that neither rule applied in the circumstances of the case. As to Rule 2, the Court concluded that the police officers involved did not decide to arrest and charge the appellant until he admitted to matters getting out of hand during a tussle on the bed, at which point he was immediately cautioned and given his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Court suggested that an objective test, rather than the subjective test applied by the Judge, should be adopted in determining when a police officer should caution a suspect. As to Rule 9, the Court found that the rule was directed to statements made by a suspect following the customary caution that anything said will be recorded, with the aim of ensuring that it is. The Court did not consider that the situation here amounted to a formal police interview conducted with a degree of formality. The Court concluded that the Judge's decision to admit the evidence was correct, as the search and accompanying discussion with the appellant were "reasonably amicable, calm and low key", and the appellant's response to being cautioned was entirely voluntary. The appeal was dismissed, and the ruling of Judge Jaine was upheld, allowing the evidence in question to be admissible in the appellant's trial.