R v Samson - [2018] NZHC 633

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE 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. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI-2017-085-2143

[2018] NZHC 633

THE QUEEN

v

BRONSON BOUDINE SAMSON

Hearing: 23 March 2018

Counsel:

J M O’Sullivan for Crown K Preston for Defendant

Judgment:

10 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J (ADMISSIBILITY OF VIDEO INTERVIEW)

Introduction

[1] The defendant, Bronson Samson, faces 10 charges in connection with two separate incidents.

R v SAMSON [2018] NZHC 633 [10 April 2018]

[2] Mr Samson is charged jointly with Jade Barton of aggravated robbery at Petone Beach on or about 8 August 2017 (the Petone incident). On 23 March 2018, he pleaded guilty to that charge.

[3] Mr Samson is also jointly charged with Mr Barton of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, aggravated wounding and arson on 9 August 2017 at Wellington (the taxi incident). He also faces five charges of using a document.

[4] On 11 August 2017, two days after the alleged taxi incident, Mr Samson was interviewed at the Wellington Central Police Station and asked about both the Petone and taxi incidents. He takes no issue with the interview relating to the Petone incident but challenges the admissibility of his interview concerning the taxi incident.

[5] The Crown has applied for an order that the evidence is admissible on the grounds the evidence is relevant and has probative value which outweighs any illegitimate prejudice; the evidence was properly obtained; and, if found to have been improperly obtained, the exclusion of it would be disproportionate to any impropriety.

[6] The defence opposes the application on the basis the evidence was unfairly obtained in breach of the Practice Note on Police Questioning 2007 (the Practice Note)1 and, given the importance of the rights breached, the evidence should be excluded.

Interview

[7] The interview lasted approximately half an hour and started just before 8.00 am on 11 August 2017, after Mr Samson was given coffee, water and antibiotics (for a burn on his leg).2

[8] The challenge is to the second part of the interview when Mr Samson was asked about the taxi incident. It is, however, relevant to consider what happened at the start of the interview and how Mr Samson dealt with questioning generally.

1 Pursuant to the Evidence Act 2006, s 30(6) and published as Practice Note – Police Questioning (s 30(6) of the Evidence Act 2006) [2007] 3 NZLR 297.
2 Jobsheet Detective Evans, 11 August 2017.

[9] The interview began with Mr Samson being informed he was to be asked about both incidents. He was given his rights pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). Mr Samson confirmed he had spoken to a lawyer that morning.

[10] The detective then asked about the Petone incident, to…

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 Samson

Details

AGLC: R v Samson [2018] NZHC 633
Case: [2018] NZHC 633
Decision Date: 10 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bronson Samson is facing multiple charges related to two separate incidents, one of which he has pleaded guilty to. The central issue in the case was the admissibility of a video interview conducted by police concerning the second incident, with the defendant arguing the evidence was unfairly obtained. The court considered the defendant's invocation of his right to legal advice during the interview and whether the police breached this right by continuing to question him. The Crown argued that the defendant's request for legal advice was not immediate or unequivocal, and that the questioning was not oppressive or overbearing. The court agreed with the Crown, finding that while the defendant had invoked his right to silence, he did not immediately request legal advice in a manner that would require the interview to stop. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant, probative, and not unfairly obtained, and therefore admissible. The application by the Crown to admit the evidence was granted.

Orders