1. Family Harm & CYP - CASE LAW Flashcards
R v Kahu [1995]
S. 39 Warrant
Held. Searching cupboards for food was reasonable. Cannabis grow located and child taken under OT care
Pettus v R
[2013] S.42 Warrantless
It was NOT critically necessary to remove CYP, should have applied for warrant under .39
Police v D
(3 May 2002)
Got dicked around
s.48 used and CYP taken to police station for questioning instead of home after he gave his address
Police took him to cell block instead of a normal room and thereby detained CYP in secure unit.
Police failed to adhere to hierarchy of location under .48 being home, then social worker, then station.
Police v T-M
(31 January
2002)
(to mine)
Officers sought to interview and K9.
Used the guise of 48 to detain then question. Dishonest intentions.
Must not prosecute unless other options available.
if using 48 must take home
Police v T
[1998] s214
(T for Timely)
Arrest not lawful. Failed to bring before court timely. Held too long in cells.
Elia v R
(2012)
(Recorded?)
215 - needed to expalin rights before questioning offence.
In the District Court, the judge ruled that the first part of E’s statement was
admissible, but that as police had failed to restate E’s rights to him after his
support person changed, the balance of the interview was inadmissible under
s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. The judge ruled that T’s initial statement at
home was inadmissible as the police officer should have issued a warning
under s 215 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act on
observing his suspicious behaviour. T’s later statements made at the police
station with his mother however, were ruled admissible.
S R v K (17 July
2002)
(Schnitzel Von Krumm as support person?)
K, a child suspected of homicide was asked to come to station for questioning.
K not was not arrested and not obliged to accompany.
support person deemed unfit. Police failed to ask K who he would choose as next support person - police can only nominate an option when CYP refuses to do so.
S v Police (14
March 2006)
HC, Auckland,
S for Spontaneous
The Court held that the offer of immunity plainly influenced S’s decision to
point out and explain where the aggravated robberies occurred and, in that
sense, his admissions were not made spontaneously.
Police v Elliot (1996) Napier – consent
to remain on property; s19
• The applicant is able to withdraw, at any time, their consent for
the respondent to remain at the address. Once withdrawn, the
respondent must leave within a reasonable time.
• Police should inform the respondent that they are required to
leave, and should provide a reasonable time to gather some basic
items together (eg clothing), and also to arrange for somewhere to
go.
• If, having been informed that they must leave, the respondent
refuses to go, they breach the order and can be arrested.
Senior v Police (2013) NZHC 356
Too old for FB
The Court dismissed S’s appeal. It found there was no defence available to him on the basis that the person subject to the domestic protection order was not a Facebook friend and therefore it was not certain she would see the abuse
