The Queen v Percy Awaroa Thompson

The case of The Queen v Percy Awaroa Thompson was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Percy Awaroa Thompson is the appellant, facing trial in the District Court on charges of violence against a woman who has an intellectual impairment and is functionally equivalent to a child of five years and eight months. The Crown sought a direction permitting part or the entirety of the complainant's evidence in chief to be admitted in the form of a videotaped interview, and for further evidence in chief to be given and examined by way of closed circuit television. The application was opposed by the appellant, who argued that there was no statutory or inherent power for the District Court to grant such orders. The District Court Judge, however, held that there was an inherent power, and the appellant sought leave to appeal this decision.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the District Court's jurisdiction to allow the use of videotaped interviews and closed circuit television for the complainant's evidence in chief. The appellant argued that there was no express statutory power for such orders, and that the court did not have the inherent jurisdiction because the power exercised was not ancillary to a statutory power. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the previous decisions of the Court of Appeal in R v Moke & Lawrence and Accused v Attorney-General established the existence of an inherent jurisdiction in the District Court to make such orders, and that the merits of the application were plain from the expert evidence before the District Court.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court Judge's reasoning that the inherent jurisdiction exists to apply the statutory regime analogously to persons over the age of 17 years who suffer from intellectual impairment, as well as to those under the age of 17 years in cases of alleged non-sexual offending. The Court further held that orders in the nature of those sought do not breach section 376 of the Crimes Act, nor do they necessarily infringe the rights assured by sections 25 and 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, affirming the District Court's decision.

The Court of Appeal issued a final order granting leave to appeal but dismissing the appeal, thereby affirming the District Court's decision to allow the use of videotaped interviews and closed circuit television for the complainant's evidence in chief in the case of The Queen v Percy Awaroa Thompson.