R v Z - [2008] NZCA 246

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR PARTICULARS IDENTIFYING RESPONDENT UNTIL TRIAL.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE
UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA604/07 [2008] NZCA 246

THE QUEEN

v

Z (CA604/07)

Hearing: 24 April 2008
Court: Glazebrook, Hammond and Ellen France JJ Counsel: A Markham and K A L Bicknell for Crown
J J Corby for Respondent

Judgment: 17 July 2008 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The appeal is dismissed.

R V Z (CA604/07) CA CA604/07 [17 July 2008]

COrder prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings in news media or on internet or other publicly accessible database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law
digest permitted.

REASONS

Glazebrook and Hammond JJ [1] Ellen France J [134]

GLAZEBROOK and HAMMOND JJ

(Given by Glazebrook J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction  [1] Procedural history  [6] Woodhouse J’s judgment  [13] The parties’ contentions  [16] Issues  [22] Should leave to appeal be granted?  [23] Does the CYPFA require police to inform children and young
persons of their entitlement to free legal advice?  [24]
Legislative provisions  [24] Parties’ submissions  [28] Discussion  [32]
Were the police obliged, under the test in Alo, to advise Z of his entitlement to free legal advice?  [46] The test in Alo  [48] Submissions of the parties  [49] Discussion   [52]
Did Z understand his rights?  [54] Advice given  [56] Did the police adequately explain Z’s right to consult with and
have a lawyer present in addition to his father?  [69] Did Z appreciate the nature of assistance a lawyer can provide?  [72] Did Z appreciate the use to which his statements could be put?  [80] What was the role of Z’s father?  [83]

Should the Canadian practice of advising nominated persons to ensure that the child or young person receives legal
advice be adopted?  [92]
Was there reasonable compliance with s 215?  [97]
Was there unfair cross-examination and/or unfair use of
co-accused’s statements?  [98]
Are the parts of the video where the police had left the video
room admissible?  [109]
Result  [118]
Appendices

Introduction

[1] Z faces a charge of murdering Mr Thomas Martin. Z was 14 at the time and was with a group of young males (aged between 17 and 20) in the early hours of the morning of 2 April 2006 in a reserve in Glen Innes. It is alleged that the group (allegedly all members or associates of the Young East Side and Koe Ha Street gangs) had assembled at the reserve to fight a rival gang. Mr Martin, who is not a member of the rival gang, was attacked as he walked through the reserve.

[2] The Crown case is…

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 Z

Details

AGLC: R v Z [2008] NZCA 246
Case: [2008] NZCA 246
Decision Date: 17 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Crown against a decision of the High Court that the interview and reconstruction of an incident in which Z, a 14 year old boy, was allegedly involved were inadmissible at his trial. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that there was no obligation on police to advise Z of his entitlement to free legal advice under the Police Detention Legal Assistance Scheme. The Court also held that the explanation of Z's rights was not adequate. The Court considered that the officer should have explained the role of a lawyer and how a lawyer could help Z at that stage in the investigation. The Court held that the interview became oppressive and that the questioning exceeded acceptable bounds, particularly given Z's age. The Court also held that the questioning contained elements of emotional blackmail and inappropriate comments by the officer. The Court held that the video interview was inadmissible on other grounds but considered that the admissibility of parts of the video where the police had left the video room should be considered.

Orders