R v Zurowski

In this case, Cindy Elizabeth Zurowski, an Australian citizen, was awaiting trial for allegedly importing the controlled substance MDMA into New Zealand. The appeal was against a ruling of Judge C J Field that identification evidence from three Crown witnesses was admissible at trial. The Crown's case involved the booking of flight tickets and hotel accommodations under different names, which were linked to the appellant. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the identification evidence from the three witnesses was admissible. The appellant argued that the identification evidence was unreliable and prejudicial, due to several factors including the delay in the presentation of the photo montage, the manner in which the montage was constructed, and the lack of detailed descriptions given by the witnesses prior to viewing the montage.

The Court of Appeal held that the identification evidence was admissible. The court found that while the police could have followed a more professional approach in preparing the photo montage, the montage did not fall below an acceptable standard. The court also noted that the appellant's photograph was not significantly larger than the others, nor was it the only one where the person was smiling. The court further held that the other women depicted in the montage were reasonably similar in appearance to the appellant. The court concluded that the identification evidence was not so unreliable as to justify exclusion, and the weaknesses in the evidence went to its weight rather than its admissibility.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the identification evidence was deemed admissible. The Court of Appeal noted that if the Evidence Act 2006 had come into force by the time of the trial, the trial judge would need to reassess the admissibility of this evidence in light of the new law.