R v Taiaroa

[2015] NZHC 2310

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CORRECTION OFFICER REFERRED TO IN THIS JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 2310

THE QUEEN

v

LEWIS HAPI TAIAROA

Hearing:	14, 15 and 17 September 2015
Counsel:	D G Johnstone for Crown K W Burroughs for Defendant
Judgment:	23 September 2015

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 September 2015 at 4.00pm pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:

K W Burroughs, Hamilton

R v TAIAROA [2015] NZHC 2310 [23 September 2015]

charges brought against Mr Taiaroa arising out of a riot that occurred at Springhill Correctional Facility on 1 June 2013.   They were: riotous behaviour, arson and assault with a weapon. Verdicts are to be given at 10am on 29 September 2015.

[2]      After  evidence had  been  called,  and  the respective cases  closed,  closing addresses were scheduled for 17 September 2015.  Before closing, Mr Johnstone, for the Crown, made an oral application for an order permitting the prosecutor to call further evidence.1    For reasons that will be set out in the reasons for verdicts that I provide on 29 September 2015, that application is dismissed.

[3]     Subsequent to closing addresses, I raised the question whether visual identification evidence given by Corrections Officer X was admissible.  I expressed reservations about assuming admissibility, based on a concession from counsel for Mr Taiaroa that the issue was one of sufficiency of evidence.   I sought further submissions.

[4]      Mr Johnstone, by memorandum dated 22 September 2015, has proffered a signed  statement  from  Corrections  Officer  X  (who  gave  evidence  identifying Mr Taiaroa on the assault with a weapon charge) to provide a foundation for a submission that there was a “good reason” for not following a formal visual identification procedure.2   Documents were attached to the signed statement that had not been disclosed pre-trial to Mr Taiaroa.

[5]      Much  of  the  evidence  contained  in  the  signed  statement  reflected  oral evidence given in Court.  Mr Burroughs, for Mr Taiaroa, objects to its production.  I reserve my decision on the admissibility of Corrections Officer X’s additional proposed evidence and admissibility (more generally) of the visual identification evidence that he gave at trial.  I shall deal with the admissibility issues in my reasons

for verdicts.

1      Evidence Act 2006, s 98.

2      Ibid, s 45(2).

Delivered at 4.00pm on 23 September 2015