T v Police HC WN CRI-2009-485-171

[2010] NZHC 117

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2009-485-171

T

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         16 February 2010

Appearances: The appellant in person

M Snape for the respondent

Judgment:      17 February 2010

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

[1]      After  a  defended  summary  trial  in  the  District  Court,  Mr  T    was convicted of stealing a loaf of bread and some butter from the Wellington City New World in Wakefield Street, Courtenay Place.  It would appear that Mr T  had earlier purchased a chicken, but returned for the bread and butter and did not pay for those items.  Mr T was convicted on the evidence given by a store manager and by the Police.

[2]      Mr T now appeals on the basis that there should be store video footage available as evidence which would exonerate him.

T V POLICE HC WN CRI-2009-485-171  17 February 2010

[3]      Here, the Police had the clear evidence of the store manager that Mr T  was passed the checkout area with two items he had not paid for.  Identity was not in issue (notwithstanding Mr T  alluding in his evidence to not being there).  He was,  after  all,  arrested  at  the  scene.    Further,  the store manager  also  identified Mr T  in his evidence-in-chief, which was given by reading his brief.  That, in the  circumstances,  the  Police  chose  to  rely on  the  direct  evidence  of  the  store manager and their own evidence from attending the scene, and did not seek to obtain relevant  store  video  footage  –  if  it  existed  –  does  not  affect  the  validity  of Mr Te \Aho’s conviction.   Whether or not such store video existed at the time is unknown.  If it did exist, it is no doubt unlikely that it still exists.

[4]      As I have noted, Mr T  was represented at the summary hearing at which he pleaded not guilty.     Although Mr T  expressed to me some dissatisfaction with his representation, the hearing took place on 15 December 2009 in respect of a charge laid against him on 20 April 2009.  There was therefore plenty of opportunity for him to enquire as to the existence of video footage and, if it did exist, ask for a copy of any relevant video material before his trial.   Other issues aside, it is simply too late, in my view, to raise this matter now.

[5]      This appeal is dismissed.

“Clifford J”

Mr M T, 304 Taranaki Street, Wellington, appellant

Crown Solicitor, Wellington for the respondent ([email protected])