R v Mullany [2019] NZDC 3168 (25 February 2019)

Last Updated: 4 July 2019

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON

I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE

KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA

CRI-2017-096-003827 [2019] NZDC 3168

THE QUEEN

v

_{RAYMOND PATRICK MULLANY}

Hearing:	25 February 2019
Appearances:	R H de Silva for the Crown K E Bailey for the Defendant
Judgment:	25 February 2019

_{RULING OF JUDGE W K HASTINGS}

[1] The Crown applies for an order that the visual footage of the defendant’s interview is admissible. The defendant is concerned that there will be an unfair prejudicial effect on the proceeding if the visual footage is played to a jury. He is content for an edited audio version, and a transcript, to be admissible.

[2] I have watched an excerpt of the video. I could see nothing that reveals either that the defendant is a prisoner, or that the interview took place in a prison. He is not wearing anything that could be identified as prison clothing. He is interviewed by a Police officer. The interview room is more cluttered than would be expected, and there

are coats hanging on the wall, but the coats do not display any visible prison or

Department of Corrections insignia.

[3] If the jury were to be given only an audio version of the interview, they might wonder why there was no visual footage and grow suspicious, a suspicion that would likely grow as a result of a direction to draw no adverse inference from the absence of visual footage.

[4] Because there are no visual indicia that the defendant is a prisoner or that the interview took place in a prison, there is nothing in the visual footage that would have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding in terms of s8 of the Evidence Act

2006 if the footage were played to a jury.

[5] I rule the visual footage admissible.

W K Hastings

District Court Judge