R v X (CA299/04)

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v X (CA299/04) involves the accused, X, a diplomat who stands accused of indecently assaulting Y, a female who worked as his nanny. The dispute revolves around the admissibility of evidence obtained from Y, who collected her own hair, containing semen allegedly from X, and handed it over to the police. X's Government waived immunity from prosecution, allowing the case to proceed. The core legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence obtained by Y and subsequently provided to the police constituted a violation of X's inviolability under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention.

The Crown argued that the circumstances did not engage the principle of Article 29 as there was no direct intervention by the receiving State to obtain the sample. They contended that Y's actions amounted to a waiver or abandonment of the semen, implying that X had waived the inviolability of his person concerning the semen. Conversely, the appellant's counsel argued that any form of obtaining bodily fluids from a diplomat, whether directly or indirectly, constitutes a violation of their inviolability and dignity, protected under the Vienna Convention.

The Court of Appeal considered the literal and historical meaning of the term "inviolable" and concluded that it should be interpreted as freedom from executive or judicial interference or constraint by the host state. They found that Y's actions did not involve any form of detention, arrest, or constraint by the receiving State or its agents. Therefore, the collection and submission of the evidence by Y did not breach Article 29. The Court upheld the Judge's ruling that the evidence is admissible at X's trial.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the admissibility of the evidence in question was upheld. The Court's decision underscores the importance of interpreting diplomatic immunity provisions strictly while balancing the interests of justice and the protection of alleged victims.