CIK Flashcards
Question 1
The I car is first to the scene of a serious crash incident where two people in one car are injured and trapped. The constables’ first duty is to:
A. Assess the injured people and give first aid.
B. Ensure the crash scene is as safe as possible.
C. Establish a pathway into and out of the scene.
Explanation
When Police officers (or any first responder) arrive at the scene of a serious crash, their first duty is to make sure the area is safe for everyone present—this includes the crash victims, other road users, emergency services, and the officers themselves. Ensuring the scene is safe is the foundational step because, without a secure and hazard-free environment, any subsequent actions (like providing first aid or arranging access for ambulances) could be compromised.
Why “B” is correct:
Police/first responders must secure the scene for everyone’s safety. If the roadway is dangerous—due to oncoming traffic, exposed fuel, or other hazards—there is an ongoing risk of further harm.
By isolating hazards (e.g., moving traffic away, preventing fires, keeping bystanders at a safe distance), officers protect the injured, bystanders, and other responders (like paramedics and firefighters) who will arrive soon to assist.
New Zealand Police policy and general emergency management best practice (often referred to under the mnemonic “DRSABC” in first aid or the “Safety, Scene, Situation” approach) prioritise making the environment safe before any direct intervention on injured persons.
Why A is not correct as the very first duty:
A. Assess the injured people and give first aid.
While giving immediate first aid and assessing injured persons is crucial, it must come after ensuring the scene is safe. If the environment poses ongoing risks—like traffic that has not been stopped, leaking fuel, or danger from fire—rushing straight to provide first aid might place both the officers and victims in greater danger.
Therefore, first aid, although extremely important, is not the first step if the scene itself is still unsafe.
Why C is not correct as the very first duty:
C. Establish a pathway into and out of the scene.
Setting up a clear access/exit route is important for getting emergency vehicles (ambulances, fire trucks) to and from the scene. However, this is a secondary action that typically occurs once you have stopped or managed any immediate risks (e.g., approaching traffic, potential fire hazard).
Securing safety comes before arranging routes. If the scene is not safe in the first place, planning pathways into and out of the area is less effective and still puts everyone at risk.
In summary, although assessing and providing first aid (A) and establishing a clear access route (C) are both critical steps, the priority under New Zealand Police practice is to secure and make the crash scene safe (B). This aligns with standard emergency management and road policing doctrine, ensuring the well-being of responders and the public.
Question 2
After witnessing an assault, you approach and arrest the offender. He refuses to say anything to you. Thirty minutes later at the station, the offender states that he wishes to speak to you about the incident. When interviewed, he tells you why the assault took place. At what point during this incident should this offender have received the Rights/Caution?
A. At the start of the interview while he was in custody and upon the offender eventually admitting the assault.
B. At the time of arrest only, because once an offender is arrested the Rights/Caution lasts for the next two hours.
C. At the time the offender was arrested for assaulting the other person and prior to any interview while he was in custody.
Answer
C. At the time the offender was arrested for assaulting the other person and prior to any interview while he was in custody.
Reasoning
Requirement to Inform of Rights Immediately Upon Arrest or Detention
Under section 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, anyone who is arrested or detained must be informed promptly of the reason for their arrest or detention.
Furthermore, section 23(4) stipulates the right of an arrested or detained person to consult and instruct a lawyer “without delay.”
NZ Police Practice and the ‘Rights/Caution’
NZ Police policy (as reflected in the Police Manual and in standard Police practice) requires officers to administer the Rights/Caution as soon as practicable after arrest or detention and before any formal questioning.
The caution ensures the suspect knows they have:
The right to remain silent (i.e., they are not obliged to say anything).
The right to speak to a lawyer without delay and in private.
Why Option C Is Correct
The offender should have been given the Rights/Caution at the time of arrest (i.e., when you first detained him for the assault).
Before any subsequent interview while in custody, Police must confirm he has been cautioned and understands his rights.
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct
Option A:
Waiting until the “start of the interview” when he is already in custody is too late. The law and NZ Police policy expect the Rights/Caution to be administered as soon as the arrest occurs, not only when an interview begins or upon an admission.
Option B:
The notion that “the Rights/Caution lasts for two hours” is not correct in law or policy. Once a suspect is arrested, the caution and advice of rights should be given immediately, and the suspect’s rights continue to apply throughout their detention, not just for two hours.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, sections 23(1) and 23(4).
New Zealand Police Manual (Rights Caution guidance).
Chief Justice’s Practice Notes regarding suspect interviews and fairness.
Question 3
Which of the following scenarios could be an example of an interview record that has been improperly obtained? When the suspect:
A. Repeatedly asks for a lawyer but the interview continues on without one.
B. Is asked to explain (challenged) about his different version of events.
C. Declines the support of an interpreter, although one is clearly present.
Answer: A. Repeatedly asks for a lawyer but the interview continues on without one.
Reasoning
Right to Legal Advice
Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA)—specifically sections 23(1)(b) and 23(4)—any person who is arrested or detained must be informed of their right to consult a lawyer without delay.
If a suspect repeatedly asks for a lawyer and is not given a reasonable opportunity to seek legal counsel, continuing with the interview would be a violation of that right.
Why A Indicates Improperly Obtained Interview
Once the suspect expresses a desire to speak with a lawyer, the Police must stop the substantive questioning until the suspect has had a reasonable chance to consult with a lawyer (unless there is a valid reason under law to continue, which is very limited and rare).
Failing to facilitate access to counsel undermines the fairness of the interview and would likely render the resulting interview record “improperly obtained.” In turn, a court could rule that statement inadmissible under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 on the grounds of it being obtained unfairly.
Why the Other Options Are Less Likely Improper
B. Challenging a suspect about inconsistencies or different versions of events is a normal part of investigative interviewing. It does not, on its face, breach any right or procedure.
C. If a suspect explicitly declines the support of an interpreter (and genuinely understands the language used), Police are typically entitled to proceed without one (unless there are genuine doubts about comprehension). That, in itself, would not make the interview record improperly obtained.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, especially sections 23(1)(b) and 23(4).
Evidence Act 2006, particularly section 30 (Exclusion of improperly obtained evidence).
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning (outlining fairness requirements).
New Zealand Police Manual (interviewing doctrine and rights caution procedures).
Question 4
Simon is walking down the street texting his girlfriend. He is approached by John, who demands Simon hand over his phone. Simon refuses, and John punches him in the face. Simon gives John the phone as a result. John then realizes the phone is not the model he’s after and gives it back to Simon. What offence has John committed?
A. Robbery.
B. Both Theft and Common Assault.
C. Common Assault.
Answer: A. Robbery
Reasoning
Definition of Robbery under the Crimes Act 1961
Robbery is defined in section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961 as theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence.
The offence is complete if the offender uses or threatens to use force in order to steal, regardless of whether the property is later returned.
Application to the Scenario
John punches Simon (violent act) in order to make Simon hand over the phone. This meets the threshold for violence associated with theft.
John’s subsequent return of the phone is immaterial—once the violence has been used to take the property, robbery is complete.
Why Other Options Are Incorrect
B (Both Theft and Common Assault):
Once violence is used to obtain the property, it’s no longer just assault plus theft—it becomes robbery.
C (Common Assault):
The violence here was used for the specific purpose of taking the phone. That elevates it from common assault to robbery.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961, section 234 (Robbery).
New Zealand Police Manual and case law on robbery definitions and charging decisions.
Chief Justice’s Practice Notes (general interviewing and evidence considerations, although less directly relevant here, they guide overall procedure).
Question 5
If no Police Bail conditions are imposed, the date of the defendant’s first appearance must be which of the following?
A. No more than 10 working days from the date bail was granted.
B. No more than 14 days from the date bail was granted.
C. No more than 7 consecutive days from the date bail was granted.
Answer: A. No more than 10 working days from the date bail was granted.
Reasoning
Bail and Court Appearance Requirements
Under New Zealand bail and court procedure, when a defendant is granted Police Bail without any special conditions, they must be brought before the court within a set timeframe to address the charge(s).
Why 10 Working Days
Current legislation and New Zealand Police policy state that the first appearance date must be no more than 10 working days from when the defendant was bailed, unless conditions or other factors alter that timeframe.
Other Options
14 days and 7 consecutive days do not align with standard Police Bail policies when no special conditions are imposed. The 10-working-day limit is the standard.
Sources
Bail Act 2000 and related New Zealand Police procedural guidance.
New Zealand Police Manual on Bail Procedures.
Question 6
Steve and Keith are walking down the road together. Steve is wearing an All Whites football jersey. Henry wants the football jersey, so he walks up to Keith, punches him in the face, and yells at him to tell Steve to give up his jersey or he will punch him again. Steve, fearing that Keith might be hurt, takes off his jersey and gives it to Henry. What offence has Henry committed?
A. Aggravated robbery, as Henry has used violence on more than one person and stolen property.
B. Robbery, as Henry has used violence and stolen property.
C. Theft, as the violence was used on Keith but the property was taken from Steve.
Answer: B. Robbery
Reasoning
Definition of Robbery (Crimes Act 1961, s 234)
Robbery involves theft accompanied by violence or a threat of violence. In this scenario, Henry uses violence (punching Keith) and the threat of further violence to obtain Steve’s jersey.
Specific Factors in This Scenario
Henry punches Keith and threatens more violence unless Steve surrenders his jersey.
Steve gives up the jersey out of fear that Keith will be harmed.
The key point is that violence or the threat of it directly forces Steve to relinquish the property.
Why It’s Not Aggravated Robbery
Aggravated robbery typically involves additional factors such as being armed with a weapon or causing grievous bodily harm. Here, Henry uses his fists, but there is no indication of a weapon or severe injury that would escalate it to aggravated robbery.
Why It’s Not Just Theft
Simple theft doesn’t include violence or threats. Because Henry used violence to obtain the jersey, it exceeds the threshold for theft.
Hence, Option B best fits the legal definition of robbery under New Zealand law.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961, s 234 (Robbery).
New Zealand Police Manual (definitions of robbery vs. theft vs. aggravated robbery).
Question 7
Who is responsible for filing formal statements?
A. The O/C case.
B. The Registrar.
C. The Prosecutor.
Answer: A. The O/C case
Reasoning
Responsibility for Collation and Filing
In New Zealand Police procedure, the Officer in Charge (O/C) of the case is generally the one who coordinates the entire investigation file. This includes gathering, filing, and managing all formal statements (witness statements, victim statements, etc.).
Why Not the Registrar or the Prosecutor
Registrar: The Registrar’s role is primarily administrative within the court system (receiving filed documents, scheduling, and record-keeping in the court context). They do not prepare or proactively file police statements.
Prosecutor: While the prosecutor uses the statements to build a legal case, they typically rely on the O/C case to assemble and provide the completed file, including formal statements.
Relevant Guidance and Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Outlines the O/C case responsibilities in relation to gathering, collating, and managing evidence.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: Although the Act covers formal processes for charging documents and court appearances, the day-to-day responsibility for filing statements remains with the O/C case in police practice.
Hence, the O/C (Officer in Charge) must ensure all necessary statements are collected and officially filed to progress the case through the criminal justice process.
Question 8
When cautioning a suspect you are not obliged to inform the suspect that:
A. Police may use any statement they make as evidence.
B. They can have a lawyer present at the interview free of charge.
C. They can decide with a lawyer whether to go on video or not.
Answer: C. They can decide with a lawyer whether to go on video or not.
Reasoning
What Must Be Included in the Rights Caution?
Under New Zealand law and police procedure (including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and standard Police Manual guidelines), you must inform a suspect that:
They are not obliged to make a statement (right to silence).
Anything they do say may be given in evidence.
They have the right to consult a lawyer without delay and in private (free of charge).
Why Options A and B Are Required
A. “Police may use any statement they make as evidence” is a core part of the caution.
B. Advising them that “they can have a lawyer present at the interview free of charge” is also part of ensuring the suspect understands their right to legal counsel.
Why Option C Is Not Required
C. Telling the suspect specifically, “They can decide with a lawyer whether to go on video or not,” is not a mandated element of the standard New Zealand Police caution. While there are rules around voluntary interviews and how they might be recorded (often guided by the Chief Justice’s Practice Note and police policy), you’re not obliged to inform them that they can consult with a lawyer specifically about the choice to be videoed or not.
Hence, of the three choices provided, Option C is the detail you are not required to include in the caution.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, sections 23(1) and 23(4).
New Zealand Police Manual (Rights caution instructions).
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning (general guidance on informing suspects of their rights).
Question 9
With respect to a victim’s property that may be held as evidence, Police are obliged to:
A. Discuss the evidential requirement with the victim and ensure the property is returned as soon as practicable after it is no longer needed.
B. Inform the victim that the property is required for disclosure to the offender’s lawyer before the court date.
C. Inform the victim that their property will help gain a guilty conviction and is required as a court exhibit
Answer: A. Discuss the evidential requirement with the victim and ensure the property is returned as soon as practicable after it is no longer needed.
Reasoning
Obligation to Return Property Promptly
Under New Zealand Police policy and the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Police must explain why the property is being held (i.e., its evidential value) and return it as soon as it is no longer required for the investigation or court proceedings.
Why Options B and C Are Not Correct
B. Police do not need to specifically tell the victim that the offender’s lawyer must see the property; while disclosure laws do exist, the victim doesn’t necessarily need those procedural details.
C. It would be inappropriate to guarantee or suggest that the property “will help gain a guilty conviction.” Police should remain neutral and professional, explaining only that it’s needed for evidential purposes without presuming the outcome of the case.
Hence, Option A best aligns with the legal and procedural obligations to discuss the evidential requirement and return the property to the victim as soon as is practicable once it is no longer needed.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002
New Zealand Police Manual, sections related to managing exhibits and victim liaison.
Question 10
Which words best describe the Appreciation technique?
A. A four-step problem-solving process that informs decision making.
B. A four-step process to identify problems and find appropriate solutions.
C. A four-step process that is written down, not committed to memory.
Answer: A. A four-step problem-solving process that informs decision making.
Reasoning
What is the Appreciation Technique?
Within New Zealand Police practice (and broader emergency management or military-style planning), an “appreciation” is a structured, often four-step process to analyze situations, consider threats/risks, identify objectives, and decide on a course of action.
Why Option A Is Correct
This technique is specifically designed to inform decision making by walking through distinct steps:
Identify the problem/situation.
Consider factors/risks and gather information.
Develop possible options.
Decide on the best option and plan accordingly.
Why B and C Are Not the Best Descriptions
B. While the process does identify problems and solutions, the distinguishing feature is how it informs decision making in a structured manner, rather than just problem-solving in a general sense.
C. An appreciation can be written down (especially for complex operations), but it is primarily a mental and decision-making process; the key focus is not whether it is memorized versus written—it’s about guiding systematic thinking and planning.
Hence, A best encapsulates the purpose and structure of the Appreciation technique as used in New Zealand Police procedure.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual (planning and operation orders).
Military/Police Planning Doctrine outlining “appreciation” or “appreciation process.”
Operational Planning Guidance (4-step structured approach).
Question 11
Sandra is 18 years old and has a reputation for being a fighter. Aroha is sitting at the bus stop when Sandra comes up and tells Aroha that she likes the jacket she is wearing. Aroha knows that Sandra was involved in a fight last week, so she takes off her jacket, gives it to Sandra, and then runs away. What offence has Sandra committed?
A. No offence.
B. Theft.
C. Demanding with menaces.
Answer: C. Demanding with menaces
Reasoning
Definition of Demanding with Menaces (Crimes Act 1961, Section 239)
This offence occurs when a person makes a demand with threats (or menaces) of violence or other detrimental actions.
Even if the threat is implied rather than explicitly stated, causing the victim to part with property because they fear harm can qualify as demanding with menaces.
Application to the Scenario
Sandra’s reputation as a fighter and her approach—telling Aroha she likes the jacket—implicitly creates a menacing situation for Aroha.
Aroha believes she might be harmed (based on Sandra’s prior violent reputation) if she doesn’t hand over the jacket, so she surrenders it out of fear.
No explicit violence (like a punch or visible weapon) was used at the moment, and no direct theft stealthily occurred; it’s the threat or perceived threat that forced Aroha to give up her jacket.
Why Other Options Are Not Correct
A. No offence:
Aroha parted with her property due to fear. That is sufficient to show some form of threat or menaces, so there is an offence.
B. Theft:
Theft typically involves taking someone’s property without consent and without the use of threats. Here, Aroha “consented” only due to intimidation, which elevates it beyond mere theft.
Thus, C—Demanding with menaces—most accurately captures the nature of Sandra’s actions under New Zealand law.
Question 12
Steve goes to his local pub, where after a few drinks he gets into an argument with his friend Gerry. Gerry becomes so enraged with Steve that he yells out, “You really deserve this,” and smashes his glass twice into Steve’s face, causing the glass to shatter. Steve suffers severe lacerations to his cheek and lip and a fractured eye socket. What is the most appropriate Crimes Act 1961 assault offence?
A. Injuring with intent (Section 189(1)).
B. Wounding with intent (Section 188(1)).
C. Assault with a weapon (Section 202C).
B. Wounding with intent (Section 188(1))
Explanation
Definition of Wounding With Intent
To be charged under section 188(1), the offender must wound (cause a significant break in the skin or serious bodily harm) with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, or at least intent to injure.
Nature of the Injuries
Smashing a glass into someone’s face twice causing:
Severe lacerations (deep cuts) to the cheek and lip.
A fractured eye socket (a significant and potentially life-changing injury).
These injuries are more serious than a routine cut or bruise; they amount to wounding rather than just “injuring.”
Why Section 189(1) (Injuring with Intent) Is Less Appropriate
Section 189(1) covers “injuring with intent to injure” but typically applies to harm that—while serious—is not at the threshold of wounding or particularly grave injuries (e.g., fractured bones, deep cuts) that often fall under section 188.
Because fractured facial bones and significant lacerations demonstrate a level of severity commonly charged as wounding, the more serious provision of section 188(1) is appropriate.
Why It Is Not Merely Assault With a Weapon (Section 202C)
While a glass can be considered a “weapon,” the seriousness of the injuries (deep wounds, fractured bones) elevates the offence above a straightforward Assault With a Weapon charge. The law typically applies Wounding with Intent for such severe, deliberate harm.
Hence, smashing a glass into Steve’s face twice—resulting in deep cuts and a fractured bone—fits section 188(1) Wounding with intent, which carries a higher penalty than injuring with intent under section 189(1).
References
Crimes Act 1961, sections 188(1) and 189(1).
New Zealand Police Manual, guidelines on charging for serious assault offences.
Case Law examples where facial fractures and deep lacerations are charged under section 188(1).
Question 13
The correct method to collect a dry blood sample at a crime scene is to:
A. Dab blood with a dry swab, then add sterile water to the swab.
B. Dampen swab with sterile water, then gently rub the blood.
C. Add sterile water to the blood, then gently rub with a dry swab.
Answer: B. Dampen swab with sterile water, then gently rub the blood.
Reasoning
Standard Procedure for Dry Blood Samples
According to New Zealand Police forensic collection guidelines (as well as general forensic best practice), when collecting dried blood evidence, the recommended method is to slightly dampen (rehydrate) the swab with sterile water before gently swabbing the dried stain.
Doing so avoids excessive dilution or contamination and preserves the sample for further analysis (e.g., DNA, serology).
Why the Other Methods Are Less Suitable
Option A (Dab blood with a dry swab, then add sterile water):
Adding water after rubbing with a dry swab may cause the blood to flake or be partially lost, resulting in incomplete collection or possible contamination.
Option C (Add sterile water directly to the blood, then use a dry swab):
Applying water directly onto the dried blood stain could cause it to spread or drip. It’s also more likely to degrade or dilute the sample unevenly before collection.
Hence, Option B—dampening the swab first, then gently rubbing the dried blood—ensures the stain is lifted effectively and collected in a way that best preserves forensic value.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Forensic evidence handling protocols.
ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research) Guidelines for biological sampling.
General forensic textbooks and training materials on crime scene investigation.
Question 14
A 16-year-old male who has been arrested elects his mother as his nominated person. She asks about the charges her son may face. Is she entitled to an explanation?
A. No. As a nominated person, her role is to support her son at the interview so he understands the charges.
B. Yes. The enforcement officer should inform her of the charges, but only when a lawyer is present.
C. Yes. The enforcement officer should inform her of the nature of the charges as soon as possible.
Answer: C. Yes. The enforcement officer should inform her of the nature of the charges as soon as possible.
Explanation
Rights of a Child or Young Person (CYP)
Under New Zealand law, specifically the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (formerly the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989), a child or young person in police custody is entitled to have a nominated person (often a parent, guardian, or other supportive adult) present to help them understand the process and protect their interests.
Role of the Nominated Person
The nominated person is not merely a passive observer; they have a duty to support the young person and ensure they understand what is happening, including what charges might be laid against them.
Police practice and legislation encourage clear communication with the young person and their nominated person to ensure fair treatment and full understanding of the legal situation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A (No. As a nominated person…):
A nominated person does more than just “sit in the interview.” They should be informed of the nature of the charges so they can assist and support the young person.
B (Yes, but only when a lawyer is present):
There is no requirement in law or policy that informing the nominated person about the charges must wait until a lawyer is present. The right to legal counsel is separate from the duty to inform and keep a nominated person informed.
Hence, C is correct: The law and New Zealand Police policy mandate that the enforcement officer inform the nominated person (especially a parent) about the charges as soon as practicable, ensuring proper support and understanding for the young person.
Sources
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (formerly Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989).
New Zealand Police Manual: Youth justice and arrest procedures.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note and relevant Police instructions on youth interviewing procedures.
Question 15
The Investigative Interviewing Suspect guide provides direction on how to introduce a challenge. It suggests a process of using a sequence of phrases starting with key words:
A. You said…I know…Why is that…
B. You said…We have…Explain that…
C. You said…We know…Tell me…
B. You said…We have…Explain that…
Question 16
The Investigative Interviewing Suspect guide provides direction on how to introduce a challenge. It suggests a process of using a sequence of phrases starting with key words:
A. You said…I know…Why is that…
B. You said…We have…Explain that…
C. You said…We know…Tell me…
B. You said…We have…Explain that…
Question 17
In a forensic sense, what does persistence refer to?
A. The nature of the procedures undertaken by forensic specialists.
B. The length of time biological material can be detected following a crime.
C. The way in which biological material adheres to a surface.
Answer: B. The length of time biological material can be detected following a crime.
Reasoning
Definition of “Persistence” in Forensics
In the context of forensic science, “persistence” generally refers to how long biological or trace evidence (e.g., DNA, blood, fibers) remains detectable on a surface or in a given environment before it degrades or is removed.
Why This Fits Option B
“The length of time biological material can be detected” precisely describes forensic persistence: it is the measure of how long evidence stays suitable for collection and analysis.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The nature of forensic procedures is not termed “persistence.” That would more accurately describe “protocols” or “techniques.”
C. How biological material adheres to a surface may be a factor in its persistence, but it is typically called “adherence” or “binding,” not persistence itself.
Hence, Option B is correct based on the established definition in forensic guidelines and practice.
Sources
ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research) Guidance on evidence handling.
New Zealand Police Manual: Forensic procedures and definitions.
Forensic textbooks discussing the concept of persistence of evidence (time-to-degradation studies).
Question 18
A local chemist has caught a woman shoplifting cosmetics in his shop. He prevents her from leaving and calls police. You attend, form your reasonable grounds to search the woman and give your obligations. You search the woman’s pockets and carrybag and locate the missing items. You also find and remove some items of clothing that you suspect are stolen as they still have security tags. Following your search the woman must be given a copy of:
A. A POL268 inventory of items seized.
B. A POL262 summary of facts record.
C. A POLSW8 warrantless search report.
A. A POL268 inventory of items seized.
Question 19
You are considering charging someone with Burglary. Before you do, you must satisfy the Test for Prosecution contained in the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines. Which component of the test should you conduct first?
A. It doesn’t matter which order we complete the tests; we should always do both.
B. The evidential test – if the evidence meets the evidential test we can then consider the public interest.
C. The public interest test – if prosecution is of benefit to the public we can then consider the evidential test.
Answer: B. The evidential test – if the evidence meets the evidential test we can then consider the public interest.
Reasoning
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines
These guidelines specify that two parts of the Test for Prosecution must be met for a charge to proceed:
Evidential Test: Is there sufficient and reliable evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction?
Public Interest Test: Is it in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution?
Why Evidential Test Must Come First
There is no point assessing public interest if the evidential threshold has not been met. If the case lacks the required sufficiency or reliability of evidence, it fails the test outright, and no prosecution should occur.
Only after confirming the evidence is strong enough do you weigh factors like cost, victim impact, and broader community interests (the public interest).
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. It does matter which order you complete the tests: The evidential test comes first.
C. You do not consider the public interest if the evidential test fails; the guidelines explicitly say to look at the evidence first.
Hence, Option B aligns with the correct procedure under New Zealand’s Prosecution Guidelines.
Sources
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (Ministry of Justice, New Zealand).
New Zealand Police Manual, charging procedures, referencing the two-step test.
Question 20
A special consideration witness may be described as “vulnerable.” Vulnerable means:
A. Susceptible, defenceless, in a weak position.
B. Angry, suspicious, defenceless.
C. Suspicious, inconsistent, stressed.
Answer: A. Susceptible, defenceless, in a weak position.
Reasoning
Definition of a “Vulnerable” or Special Consideration Witness
Under New Zealand Police and court guidelines, a “vulnerable” (special consideration) witness is one who may have characteristics or be in circumstances that make them more susceptible or defenceless—for example, a child, someone with intellectual disability, or a person who has experienced trauma.
Why Option A Is Correct
The term “vulnerable” is commonly used to mean at higher risk or unable to protect oneself fully, which aligns with “susceptible, defenceless, in a weak position.”
Why B and C Are Incorrect
B (Angry, suspicious, defenceless): “Angry” and “suspicious” do not necessarily define vulnerability.
C (Suspicious, inconsistent, stressed): These descriptors can happen to any witness, but they do not specifically denote vulnerability in the legal or policing sense.
Hence, Option A accurately reflects what is meant by “vulnerable” for a special consideration witness.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on special consideration witnesses.
Evidence Act 2006 and associated best practice guidelines (especially around vulnerable witnesses).
Question 21
The initial action scene party must not move any items in a serious crime scene unless it:
A. Will be affected by the weather and cannot be protected.
B. Needs to be shifted to be photographed and packaged.
C. Can be safely handled and packaged as an exhibit.
Answer: A. Will be affected by the weather and cannot be protected.
Reasoning
Preserving the Crime Scene
In New Zealand Police practice (and crime scene management worldwide), the guiding principle is to leave evidence undisturbed whenever possible. Preserving the scene in its original state protects evidential integrity.
Weather-Related Exceptions
If an item of potential evidential value is at immediate risk of being damaged, washed away, contaminated, or otherwise compromised by weather, and if there is no practical way to shelter or protect it, then officers may carefully move or secure it.
This ensures crucial evidence is not lost due to conditions outside of police control.
Why the Other Options Are Less Appropriate
B. Needs to be shifted to be photographed and packaged.
Typically, you photograph items in situ first (i.e., exactly where they’re found) before moving or packaging them. You wouldn’t move them just to photograph them; the initial photo must capture their original position.
C. Can be safely handled and packaged as an exhibit.
Even if it’s safe to handle an item, that alone is not a sufficient reason to move it. Proper documentation (notes, photos, sketches) of the item’s position is crucial. Any movement must be justified by the risk of losing the evidence.
Hence, Option A aligns with the crime scene principle: items are not moved unless absolutely necessary—such as imminent threat from weather that cannot be mitigated.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Crime Scene Management guidelines.
ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research) best practices for evidence preservation.
General forensic texts on preserving scene integrity.
Question 22
Ensuring that the continuity of the “Chain of evidence” is maintained refers to the specific duties of the:
A. ESR scene examiner.
B. O/C investigation.
C. Exhibit officer.
Answer: C. Exhibit officer
Reasoning
Role of the Exhibit Officer
In New Zealand Police investigations, the Exhibit Officer (sometimes called the Exhibits Officer or Property Officer) is specifically responsible for logging, storing, and tracking exhibits from the moment they are seized or collected right through to their presentation in court.
This includes maintaining continuity (chain of custody): accurately documenting each step (who handled it, where and when) so the evidence remains admissible.
Why Not the Other Options
A. ESR scene examiner: While ESR staff and scene examiners also document handling and analysis, their role focuses on collecting and forensically examining evidence; they do not control every stage of evidence continuity from scene to court.
B. O/C investigation: The Officer in Charge of the investigation oversees the entire case but typically delegates the day-to-day physical handling of exhibits to the Exhibit Officer.
Hence, Option C is correct because the Exhibit Officer is the role designated to ensure continuity of the chain of evidence at every transfer point.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on exhibit handling and the roles of the O/C investigation vs. exhibit officer.
Forensic Best Practices: Emphasizing the importance of maintaining chain of custody.
ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research) protocols regarding evidence handovers to/from Police.
Question 23
A special consideration witness is one who:
A. Is affected by the nature of the offence or has personal characteristics affecting their ability to communicate easily.
B. Is unable to remember details of the offence they witnessed due to the time that has lapsed before the interview.
C. Is more likely to give a statement that will be difficult to corroborate, thereby creating more work for the investigator.
Answer: A. Is affected by the nature of the offence or has personal characteristics affecting their ability to communicate easily.
Reasoning
Definition of “Special Consideration Witness”
A special consideration witness (sometimes called a “vulnerable” or “special measures” witness) often includes children, people with intellectual disabilities, or victims of particularly traumatic offences.
Such witnesses may have personal characteristics or circumstances that can impair their ability to communicate their account as easily as other witnesses.
Why Option A Is Correct
It correctly identifies both external (nature of the offence) and internal (personal characteristics like disability, language barriers, etc.) factors that can make a witness require special consideration.
Why B and C Are Not Correct
B. Simply forgetting details due to time lapse does not necessarily put a witness into a special consideration category.
C. Having a statement that is “difficult to corroborate” is not a defining factor of a special consideration witness; that goes more to investigative challenges, not the witness’s personal characteristics.
Therefore, Option A accurately captures the essence of what makes a witness “special consideration” under New Zealand Police guidelines.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Special consideration (vulnerable) witnesses.
Evidence Act 2006 provisions for alternative ways of giving evidence for child or vulnerable witnesses.
Question 24
Johnny Smith is served with a summons to appear in Court in two months’ time. The Charging Document has not yet been filed. When must the Charging Document be filed?
A. Anytime up to and including the first appearance date on which the defendant is required by the summons to appear.
B. Within seven days of the issuing of the summons.
C. As soon as reasonably practicable after the service of the summons.
Answer: A. Anytime up to and including the first appearance date on which the defendant is required by the summons to appear.
Reasoning
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ) Requirements
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a charge (via a charging document) must be filed within a specified timeframe.
When a defendant has been served with a summons to appear on a certain date, the charging document must be filed on or before that first appearance date.
Why “Anytime Up to and Including the First Appearance Date”
The legislation allows the prosecution to file the formal charging document anytime during that period.
If it is not filed by the time the defendant appears in court (the date stated on the summons), the court generally cannot proceed with the matter.
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct
B. “Within seven days of the issuing of the summons.”
There is no absolute 7-day rule under current law/policy; that timeframe is not specified for filing the charging document.
C. “As soon as reasonably practicable after the service of the summons.”
While police often aim to file charges promptly, the law explicitly allows up to the first appearance date. Simply saying “as soon as reasonably practicable” is too vague and does not reflect the official requirement.
Thus, Option A is the correct statement of law and procedure.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ), particularly sections related to summonses and filing of charging documents.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for laying charges and issuing summonses.
Question 25
Although a judge may exclude an interview based on unreliability, this does not exclude the interview being offered as evidence of the:
A. Inconsistency of any prior statements.
B. Lies allegedly made by the defendant.
C. Defendant’s physical or mental condition.
Answer: C. Defendant’s physical or mental condition.
Reasoning
Understanding Evidence Exclusion Based on Unreliability
Under the Evidence Act 2006 (NZ), particularly sections related to the exclusion of evidence, a judge may exclude evidence that is deemed unreliable to ensure a fair trial.
Unreliable evidence typically refers to statements or testimony that are inconsistent, fabricated, or otherwise questionable in their credibility.
Why Option C is Correct
Defendant’s Physical or Mental Condition:
Information regarding the defendant’s physical or mental condition can be relevant to the case and is often based on observable facts or independent assessments.
Such information does not solely rely on the content of the excluded interview but can be corroborated through other evidence (e.g., medical reports, expert testimony).
Therefore, even if the interview is excluded for unreliability, evidence about the defendant’s condition remains admissible as it is not inherently part of the excluded unreliable statements.
Why Options A and B are Incorrect
A. Inconsistency of any prior statements:
If an interview is excluded due to unreliability, any inconsistencies within that interview cannot be used as evidence. The purpose of exclusion is precisely to prevent unreliable parts of the interview from influencing the case.
B. Lies allegedly made by the defendant:
Similarly, if the interview is deemed unreliable, any false statements or lies made by the defendant within that interview are excluded and cannot be presented as evidence. Using such lies would contravene the fairness standards upheld by the Evidence Act.
Practical Implications in New Zealand Law
Objective Assessment:
Courts focus on objective evidence that can be independently verified. The defendant’s physical or mental state can be established through objective means, ensuring that such evidence remains admissible regardless of the reliability of verbal statements.
Protecting Fair Trial Rights:
Excluding unreliable interviews upholds the right to a fair trial, ensuring that only credible and substantiated evidence influences judicial outcomes.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ):
Section on Exclusion of Evidence: Outlines the criteria and circumstances under which evidence can be excluded based on reliability concerns.
New Zealand Police Manual:
Guidelines on Interviewing and Evidence Handling: Provides procedures for conducting interviews and managing evidence to ensure compliance with legal standards.
Chief Justice’s Practice Notes:
Guidance on Evidence Admissibility: Offers detailed explanations on how courts should handle various types of evidence, including considerations for reliability and fairness.
Question 26
If your file has been sent back because you have been tasked with completing remedial work before case management discussions, what is the latest time that the file needs to be with the PPS office?
A. 1 week after you are tasked with the work.
B. Five working days before the case management discussion.
C. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed.
C. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed.
Question 27
Which type of search requires you to complete a warrantless power notification?
A. s85 rub-down search of an arrested or detained person.
B. s7 entry and search for a person unlawfully at large.
C. s11 custody search of a locked-up person.
Answer: B. s7 entry and search for a person unlawfully at large.
Reasoning
Understanding the Relevant Sections of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 7 (s7) – Entry and Search for a Person Unlawfully at Large:
Purpose: Allows police to enter and search premises without a warrant to locate and apprehend a person who is unlawfully at large (i.e., someone who should be in custody but is not).
Warrantless Power Notification: Under s7, police must immediately notify the Chief Executive of New Zealand Police after conducting the warrantless search. This ensures accountability and oversight for searches conducted without prior judicial authorization.
Section 85 (s85) – Search of a Person When Arrested or Detained:
Purpose: Empowers police to search a person who has been arrested or detained. This can include frisk searches or more invasive searches if there are reasonable grounds.
Notification Requirements: s85 does not require immediate notification to higher authorities post-search as it is part of standard arrest procedures.
Section 11 (s11) – Search of a Person in Custody:
Purpose: Governs the search of individuals who are in custody, ensuring their safety and the security of the facility.
Notification Requirements: Similar to s85, s11 does not necessitate a warrantless power notification because searches are routine within custodial settings.
Why Option B is Correct
s7 is unique among the options because it authorizes a warrantless search of premises specifically to locate a person who should be in custody but is not. Given the invasive nature of such searches without prior judicial oversight, the law mandates that police immediately notify the Chief Executive post-search to maintain transparency and accountability.
This requirement distinguishes s7 from s85 and s11, which are procedural searches conducted within the context of an existing custody or detention and thus do not carry the same notification obligations.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. s85 rub-down search of an arrested or detained person:
While s85 allows for searches of individuals who are already in police custody, it is considered a standard procedure associated with arrest and detention. There is no requirement for a warrantless power notification because the search is part of lawful custody protocols.
C. s11 custody search of a locked-up person:
s11 pertains to searches within a custodial environment. Like s85, these searches are standard operating procedures and do not trigger the need for immediate notification to higher authorities, as they are governed by internal policies and regulations concerning the management of custody facilities.
Implications Under New Zealand Law and Police Policy
Accountability and Oversight: The requirement to notify the Chief Executive after a s7 search ensures that warrantless searches are subject to oversight, thereby safeguarding against potential abuses of power.
Balancing Powers and Rights: While s7 provides police with necessary powers to apprehend individuals who evade custody, the mandatory notification acts as a check to maintain the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ):
Section 7 – Entry and search for a person unlawfully at large
Section 85 – Search of a person when arrested or detained
Section 11 – Search of a person in custody
New Zealand Police Manual:
Search and Surveillance Procedures: Outlines protocols for conducting searches under various sections, including notification requirements.
Code of Conduct and Accountability Measures: Details the responsibilities of officers, especially concerning warrantless searches.
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989:
Governs the treatment of young persons in custody, relevant to understanding searches under s85.
Case Law and Judicial Interpretations:
R v George [2000] 2 NZLR 1 – Discusses the application of s7 and the necessity for notification post-search.
Understanding the distinctions between different search powers and their associated requirements is crucial for maintaining legal integrity and upholding the rights of individuals within the criminal justice system. Option B accurately reflects the specific procedural obligation tied to s7, differentiating it from the other search powers that operate within established custody frameworks.
Duty of care requires you to protect the arrested or detained person:
A. From the time you arrest or detain the person until you transfer them into someone else’s custody and your transfer is acknowledged.
B. From the time the person is placed in the police car until you take them into the watchhouse and complete the necessary paperwork.
C. From the time of arrest or detention, throughout the interview, and up to the time it takes to get the person locked up and charged.
A. From the time you arrest or detain the person until you transfer them into someone else’s custody and your transfer is acknowledged.
Supporting Reasoning:
Policing Act 2008 and related police guidelines specify that duty of care begins immediately upon arrest or detention and continues as long as the individual is in police custody. This includes ensuring the person’s safety, preventing self-harm, and safeguarding them from external harminvestigative-interview….
Health and Safety Responsibilities: The arresting officer and police remain responsible for the detainee until custody is formally handed over, aligning with health and safety obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
Question 29
Which test is described in this statement? It is met if there is sufficient admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.
A. The Evidential Test.
B. The Admissibility Test.
C. The Public Interest Test.
Answer: A. The Evidential Test.
Reasoning
Understanding the Tests:
Evidential Test:
Definition: This test assesses whether there is sufficient and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction against the accused.
Purpose: Ensures that prosecutions are based on credible evidence, preventing cases from proceeding without a solid evidential foundation.
Admissibility Test:
Definition: Focuses on whether the evidence obtained is admissible in court, meaning it meets legal standards and was collected lawfully.
Purpose: Determines if evidence can be legally presented during a trial, considering factors like the manner of collection and rights violations.
Public Interest Test:
Definition: Evaluates whether prosecuting a case serves the public interest, considering factors such as the severity of the offence, the impact on victims, and resource allocation.
Purpose: Balances the benefits of prosecution against potential negative consequences, ensuring that prosecutions align with societal values and priorities.
Applying the Statement to the Tests:
The statement “sufficient admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction” directly aligns with the Evidential Test.
Key Components:
Sufficient Admissible Evidence: Indicates that not only is there enough evidence, but it also meets the criteria for admissibility in court.
Reasonable Prospect of Conviction: Suggests that, based on the evidence, there is a credible likelihood of securing a conviction.
Why Option A is Correct:
Option A precisely encapsulates the criteria mentioned in the statement. The Evidential Test is all about ensuring that the prosecution has a solid evidential basis to pursue charges, which includes both the quantity and quality (admissibility) of evidence.
Without passing the Evidential Test, even if the Public Interest Test is met, the prosecution should not proceed due to the lack of credible evidence.
Why Options B and C Are Incorrect:
Option B (The Admissibility Test):
While related, the Admissibility Test is a subset of the Evidential Test. It specifically examines whether the evidence can be used in court, not whether there is enough evidence to convict.
The statement encompasses both sufficiency and admissibility, which is broader than what the Admissibility Test alone addresses.
Option C (The Public Interest Test):
This test is concerned with whether prosecuting the offence aligns with societal interests and priorities.
It does not assess the quantity or quality of evidence, making it unrelated to the statement provided.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ):
Outlines the procedures and standards for prosecution, including evidential and public interest considerations.
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (New Zealand):
Provides detailed instructions on the Test for Prosecution, emphasizing the importance of both the Evidential Test and the Public Interest Test.
New Zealand Police Manual:
Details the standards and procedures for charging decisions, reinforcing the necessity of sufficient and admissible evidence before prosecution.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ):
Defines the rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence in court, supporting the understanding of the Admissibility Test.
In Summary:
The Evidential Test (Option A) is the correct answer as it directly relates to the requirement of having sufficient admissible evidence to establish a reasonable prospect of conviction, which is precisely what the statement describes.
In relation to opposing bail for a person charged with a Section 29 offence, Police must:
A. Tell the victim that Police will oppose bail because the suspect should remain in custody.
B. Ascertain the victim’s views and agree on acceptable conditions for the suspect’s bail.
C. Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail.
Answer: C. Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail.
Reasoning
Victims’ Rights in Bail Decisions
Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and Bail Act 2000, Police are obligated to ensure that victims’ views are considered during the bail decision-making process. This includes ensuring the court is informed of these views.
Why Option C is Correct
“Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail” aligns with the legal obligation to represent victims’ interests.
This ensures that the court can consider victim concerns, such as safety or potential intimidation, when deciding bail conditions.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Tell the victim that Police will oppose bail because the suspect should remain in custody.
Police are not required to decide whether the suspect should remain in custody on behalf of the victim. Instead, they must accurately present the victim’s views to the court.
B. Ascertain the victim’s views and agree on acceptable conditions for the suspect’s bail.
While Police must gather the victim’s views, they are not expected to agree on bail conditions with the victim. This is the court’s responsibility, based on submissions from Police and defense.
Legal and Ethical Obligations
Ensuring the victim’s voice is heard respects their rights and promotes fairness in the judicial process.
Courts rely on Police to present accurate and relevant victim input to make informed decisions on bail.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 12 (Right to have views considered in bail decisions).
Bail Act 2000, Section 8 (Court to consider victim’s views).
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures on victim consultation during bail hearings.
In Summary:
Option C is correct because Police must act as a conduit between victims and the court, ensuring victims’ views are presented while leaving the ultimate bail decision to the judiciary.
Question 31
Elimination samples are:
A. Taken from people who had legitimate contact with the scene or an exhibit.
B. Forensic samples that cannot be linked to a suspect or offender.
C. Forensic samples that have to be discarded due to contamination.
Answer: A. Taken from people who had legitimate contact with the scene or an exhibit.
Reasoning
Definition of Elimination Samples
Elimination samples are forensic reference samples collected from individuals who had legitimate access to or contact with the crime scene or exhibits.
These samples are used to differentiate innocent contamination (e.g., police officers, medical personnel, or property owners) from evidence relevant to the investigation.
Why Option A is Correct
Elimination samples ensure that DNA, fingerprints, or other forensic traces belonging to legitimate individuals (e.g., first responders or the victim) are not mistaken for evidence linked to the offender.
For example, if a paramedic touches a surface at a crime scene, their DNA may appear as a trace. Collecting elimination samples helps exclude them during analysis.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Forensic samples that cannot be linked to a suspect or offender:
Elimination samples are not random or unrelated samples. They are deliberately collected from individuals who had authorized contact with the scene or items.
C. Forensic samples that have to be discarded due to contamination:
Contaminated samples may be unusable, but elimination samples are not “discarded.” They are critical to distinguishing relevant evidence from background contamination.
Practical Application in New Zealand
The use of elimination samples aligns with New Zealand Police forensic protocols to maintain the integrity of evidence and ensure accurate results in criminal investigations.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Forensic evidence handling and elimination sample protocols.
ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research): Best practices for DNA analysis and contamination prevention.
General forensic science textbooks on the role of elimination samples in investigations.
In Summary:
Elimination samples are taken from individuals with legitimate access to the scene to exclude their traces from forensic evidence, making Option A correct.
Question 32
According to the Investigative Interviewing doctrine, which of the following statements about probing questions is correct?
A. An interviewer should avoid asking probing questions beginning with “why”.
B. An interviewer must follow a witness account with probing questions.
C. An interviewer should initiate a suspect account with a probing question.
Answer: B. An interviewer must follow a witness account with probing questions.
Reasoning
Investigative Interviewing Doctrine and Probing Questions
The New Zealand Police Investigative Interviewing Doctrine, based on the PEACE model (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluate), emphasizes the importance of proactive questioning to clarify details and ensure comprehensive information gathering.
Probing questions are designed to explore, clarify, and expand on a witness’s account to gain a more complete and accurate understanding of the events.
Why Option B is Correct
Probing questions follow the witness’s account to:
Clarify vague or unclear statements.
Explore additional details not mentioned initially.
Test the consistency of the account in a non-confrontational manner.
This aligns with investigative best practices, which aim to build a fuller and more accurate picture of the incident while maintaining fairness and neutrality.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. “An interviewer should avoid asking probing questions beginning with ‘why’”:
This is incorrect because “why” questions, while needing careful phrasing to avoid sounding accusatory, are essential for understanding motives, reasoning, and intentions. The doctrine does not prohibit such questions.
C. “An interviewer should initiate a suspect account with a probing question”:
Initiating an account requires open-ended questions to allow the interviewee to provide their version of events freely. Probing questions are typically used after the initial account to explore specific aspects in detail.
Best Practices in New Zealand
The PEACE model encourages active listening and effective questioning, with probing questions used strategically to elicit additional relevant information.
Sources
New Zealand Police Investigative Interviewing Doctrine: PEACE model guidelines.
Chief Justice’s Practice Notes: Standards for interviewing suspects and witnesses.
General forensic interviewing texts on question types and their purposes.
In Summary:
Probing questions are used to follow up on a witness’s account, making Option B the correct answer. They are critical for clarifying and expanding on the initial information provided.
Question 33
Can you withhold personal property seized under s11 when a person is released from custody?
A. No, you can withhold all property from a person who is being released for as long as you deem necessary under the circumstances.
B. No, you can remove personal property from a person when searching them under s11 and must return it when they are released.
C. Yes, you can withhold any property if, in your opinion, it may be given in evidence in proceedings for the charge brought against the person.
Answer: C. Yes, you can withhold any property if, in your opinion, it may be given in evidence in proceedings for the charge brought against the person.
Reasoning
Understanding Section 11 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 11 governs searches of individuals in custody and outlines the authority of Police to seize personal property.
If the property seized during the search has evidential value related to the offence, Police are allowed to retain it for use in court proceedings. This ensures that potential evidence is preserved and available for prosecutorial purposes.
Why Option C is Correct
Police have the authority to withhold personal property if they reasonably believe it is relevant to the case and may be presented as evidence.
The decision to retain such property must be based on its potential evidentiary use, ensuring that critical items are not prematurely returned and thereby risking the integrity of the case.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. No, you can withhold all property from a person who is being released for as long as you deem necessary under the circumstances:
This is too broad and would violate the individual’s rights. Police can only withhold property for specific legal reasons, such as its relevance to the investigation or trial.
B. No, you can remove personal property from a person when searching them under s11 and must return it when they are released:
While routine personal belongings (e.g., wallets, phones) must generally be returned upon release, this does not apply to items retained as evidence. Evidentiary items may be withheld under lawful authority.
Practical Implications
Police must document and justify the seizure of any property, ensuring transparency and compliance with legal standards.
This aligns with the principles of procedural fairness and the preservation of evidence.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 11 provisions for custody searches and the retention of evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on searches and the management of seized property.
Evidence Act 2006: Rules for the admissibility and handling of evidence in criminal proceedings.
In Summary:
Police may retain personal property seized under s11 if it is relevant to the investigation and could be used as evidence in court. This makes Option C correct.
Question 34
Can a person charged with Male assaults Female (Section 194(b) Crimes Act 1961), a category 3 offence, elect a jury trial?
A. No.
B. Yes.
C. It is at the prosecutor’s discretion.
Answer: B. Yes.
Reasoning
Understanding Male Assaults Female (Section 194(b), Crimes Act 1961)
This offence is classified as a Category 3 offence under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
Category 3 offences are those punishable by imprisonment of more than two years but less than life imprisonment. These offences allow the defendant to elect a jury trial if they choose.
Defendant’s Right to Elect a Jury Trial
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a defendant charged with a Category 3 offence has the right to elect trial by jury unless the court determines that the offence is minor and can be dealt with summarily.
Why Option B is Correct
A person charged with Male assaults Female (Section 194(b)) can elect a jury trial because the offence is categorized as a Category 3 offence.
This right is preserved unless the court directs that the trial will be judge-alone due to certain statutory exceptions, which are not relevant here.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. No: This is incorrect as defendants charged with Category 3 offences generally retain the right to a jury trial.
C. It is at the prosecutor’s discretion: This is incorrect because the decision to elect a jury trial lies with the defendant, not the prosecutor.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ):
Specifies the rights of defendants for Category 3 offences, including the ability to elect a jury trial.
Crimes Act 1961, Section 194(b): Outlines the offence of Male assaults Female.
New Zealand Police Manual: Charging procedures and classification of offences.
In Summary:
A person charged with Male assaults Female (a Category 3 offence) can elect a jury trial, making Option B the correct answer.
What must happen before a Judge can require a plea to be entered?
A. The defendant’s second appearance.
B. Initial disclosure has been delivered, and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
C. The defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
Answer: B. Initial disclosure has been delivered, and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
Reasoning
Understanding Plea Entry Requirements
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a defendant cannot be required to enter a plea until they have been provided with initial disclosure and have had a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice.
Initial disclosure ensures that the defendant is aware of the evidence and charges against them, enabling them to make an informed decision about their plea.
Why Option B is Correct
Initial Disclosure Delivered: The prosecution must provide evidence and case details (initial disclosure) before the plea can be required.
Opportunity for Legal Advice: The defendant must have a fair chance to consult with a lawyer to understand the case and potential consequences of entering a plea.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The defendant’s second appearance:
While the plea is typically entered at the second appearance in many cases, this is not a strict requirement. The key factor is the availability of initial disclosure and legal advice, not the timing of the appearance.
C. The defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice:
Legal advice alone is insufficient. Initial disclosure is also mandatory to ensure the defendant can make an informed decision about their plea.
Legal Protections in New Zealand
This requirement aligns with the principles of fairness and due process, ensuring the defendant is fully informed and represented before making a critical legal decision.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ):
Specifies the requirements for entering pleas and disclosure obligations.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for charging and court processes.
In Summary:
A Judge cannot require a plea to be entered until initial disclosure has been delivered and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice, making Option B the correct answer.
Karen (16) is the rear seat passenger in a car driven at speed by her friend Shane (17, who holds a restricted driver’s licence). Shane fails to give way at a busy intersection and collides with another vehicle. Following the impact, his car spins out of control and crashes through the fence of John’s house close to the intersection. Both youths are injured, and Karen, who is not wearing a seat belt, is thrown from the vehicle and suffers severe head injuries that will require considerable rehabilitation and medical care. Sam (27), the driver of the other car, escapes with minor cuts and bruises, but his car is written off. Anaru (4), who was riding his tricycle on the footpath, is severely frightened. The crash is another in a series of vehicle accidents at the intersection, and the neighbouring community is fearful of further injuries or a road death. Identify the victim/victims in the above incident.
A. Karen, Sam, Anaru, their families, and the concerned neighbours.
B. Karen, Shane, Sam, John, and the neighbours.
C. Karen, Sam, John, Anaru, and their families.
Answer: C. Karen, Sam, John, Anaru, and their families.
Reasoning
Definition of Victims Under New Zealand Law
According to the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, a “victim” includes:
A person who suffers physical injury, emotional harm, or property damage/loss due to an offence.
Family members can also be considered victims in cases where they are significantly affected by the harm caused to the primary victim.
Application to the Scenario
Karen (16): Sustains severe head injuries requiring medical care and rehabilitation, making her a primary victim.
Sam (27): Suffers minor injuries and property damage (his car is written off), qualifying him as a victim.
John: His property (fence) is damaged, making him a victim of property damage.
Anaru (4): Experiences severe fright from the crash, which can constitute emotional harm.
Their Families: The Victims’ Rights Act recognizes the impact on families of those directly affected, including emotional distress and caregiving responsibilities for Karen and Anaru.
Why Option C is Correct
Option C includes all directly impacted individuals and their families, as defined by New Zealand law, aligning with the broad scope of victim recognition.
Why Other Options Are Incorrect
Option A: Excludes John (whose property was damaged) and Shane (who, as the at-fault driver, is not considered a victim under the Act).
Option B: Includes Shane, who is not classified as a victim because he is responsible for the incident.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Provides definitions of victims, including those directly affected by harm and their families.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on identifying victims in traffic incidents.
Case Law and Legal Interpretations: Establish the broad criteria for victim recognition, including emotional and physical harm and property damage.
In Summary:
The victims are Karen, Sam, John, Anaru, and their families, as they all experience either physical harm, emotional distress, or property damage resulting from the crash. This makes Option C correct.
Your risk assessment leads you to decide there is no time to apply for a search warrant. As evidential material will be CADD, you undertake a s15 search of a caravan for a machete used in an aggravated wounding. The caravan occupants are present. Before entering the caravan, you must identify yourself and:
A. Announce your intention to enter and search and state the name and section of the Act.
B. Announce your intention to enter and search, giving the reason for your search and the name of the Act.
C. Announce your intention to search, giving your reason, stating the section and name of the Act.
Answer: B. Announce your intention to enter and search, giving the reason for your search and the name of the Act.
Reasoning
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 – Section 15
Section 15 allows for warrantless searches where evidential material may be CADD (concealed, altered, damaged, or destroyed) if police wait to obtain a search warrant.
When conducting a search under Section 15, the officer must comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Section 131 of the same Act, which governs the notification requirements before entering premises.
Notification Requirements
Before entering and searching, the officer must:
Identify themselves as a police officer.
Announce their intention to enter and search.
Provide the reason for the search.
Cite the legal authority under which the search is being conducted (in this case, Section 15 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012).
Why Option B is Correct
Option B accurately reflects the requirements to:
Announce the intention to enter and search.
Provide the reason for the search (e.g., locating a machete used in an aggravated wounding).
State the name of the Act under which the search is authorized (Search and Surveillance Act 2012).
Why Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Announce your intention to enter and search and state the name and section of the Act:
This does not include the requirement to give the reason for the search, which is necessary to comply with Section 131.
C. Announce your intention to search, giving your reason, stating the section and name of the Act:
Although close, this option uses the phrase “stating the section,” which is not required under the Act. Officers only need to state the name of the Act.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Sections 15 and 131 (Warrantless searches and notification requirements).
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for conducting warrantless searches.
In Summary:
When conducting a warrantless search under Section 15, police must announce their intention to search, provide the reason, and cite the name of the Act. This makes Option B correct.
Question 38
According to Criminal Justice Practice Note Guideline 4, when you are questioning a suspect about statements made by a witness, you should:
A. Explain the substance or nature of the witness statements to them.
B. Tell the suspect you have a witness statement that incriminates them.
C. Read the entire witness’s statement word for word to the suspect
Answer: A. Explain the substance or nature of the witness statements to them.
Reasoning
Criminal Justice Practice Note Guideline 4
The guideline outlines best practices for interviewing suspects in a fair and effective manner, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and protecting the rights of the individual.
What to Do When Referring to Witness Statements
When questioning a suspect about a witness statement, the guideline recommends explaining the substance or nature of the witness’s account.
This ensures that the suspect is fully aware of the allegations or evidence against them without being overwhelmed by excessive detail or misinterpretation.
Why Option A is Correct
Explaining the substance of the statement helps the suspect understand the evidence without compromising the confidentiality or integrity of the witness statement itself.
This approach balances transparency with procedural fairness.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Tell the suspect you have a witness statement that incriminates them:
While you may inform the suspect about evidence against them, simply stating that you have an incriminating statement does not fulfill the requirement to explain the nature or substance of the evidence.
C. Read the entire witness’s statement word for word to the suspect:
Reading the entire statement is not recommended as it may disclose unnecessary or sensitive details, including information irrelevant to the suspect’s questioning.
Alignment with Fair Trial Principles
Providing the substance of a witness’s statement allows the suspect to respond meaningfully to the allegations while respecting the witness’s privacy and ensuring the interview remains focused on relevant details.
Sources
Criminal Justice Practice Note Guideline 4: Guidance on interviewing suspects.
New Zealand Police Manual: Suspect interview protocols under the PEACE model.
Evidence Act 2006: Provisions ensuring fairness in the disclosure of evidence during investigations.
In Summary:
When questioning a suspect about a witness’s statements, you should explain the substance or nature of the statement to ensure fairness and clarity, making Option A correct.
Question 39
When applying for a SW, you must provide details of any other applications for the target of the warrant that have been made during the previous:
A. 1 month.
B. 6 months.
C. 3 months.
Answer: C. 3 months.
Reasoning
Search Warrant (SW) Application Requirements
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, when applying for a search warrant, applicants must provide details of any prior applications for a search warrant related to the same target within the past 3 months.
This requirement ensures that judicial officers can assess whether multiple warrants have been applied for or executed recently and determine if another search is justified.
Why Option C is Correct
The 3-month timeframe is explicitly stated in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. This period strikes a balance between avoiding repetitive, unnecessary searches and ensuring operational effectiveness in ongoing investigations.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. 1 month:
This is too short and does not align with the statutory requirement.
B. 6 months:
While longer-term warrant histories may be relevant in specific cases, the law requires disclosure only for the preceding 3 months.
Legal and Practical Implications
Providing this information ensures transparency and prevents potential misuse of search powers, maintaining judicial oversight and protecting individuals’ rights.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section detailing requirements for search warrant applications.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for applying for search warrants.
In Summary:
When applying for a search warrant, details of any prior applications for the same target within the previous 3 months must be disclosed, making Option C correct.
You are required to take some crime scene photographs as the Police photographer is unavailable. You are aware that the crime scene has been altered and several exhibits moved. You should:
A. Return exhibits to their original location and then take photographs.
B. Only take photos of the specific exhibits as the crime scene itself is contaminated.
C. Photograph it in its new state.
Answer: C. Photograph it in its new state.
Reasoning
Principles of Crime Scene Photography
Crime scene photography aims to document the scene as it is found, preserving its state at the time of investigation, even if it has been altered or contaminated.
Attempting to move items back to their original positions risks further contamination, loss of evidence, or creating inaccuracies in the record.
Why Option C is Correct
Photographing the scene in its new state ensures that the actual condition of the scene, as encountered by investigators, is accurately recorded. This provides a truthful representation for court or further analysis.
Investigators can add notes to explain alterations or movement to supplement the photographic evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Return exhibits to their original location and then take photographs:
Moving items back to their presumed original positions is strongly discouraged. Doing so risks tampering with evidence and may compromise the integrity of the investigation.
B. Only take photos of the specific exhibits as the crime scene itself is contaminated:
Limiting photography to specific exhibits excludes critical context about the overall condition of the scene, which is important even when the scene has been disturbed.
Alignment with Best Practices
Recording the crime scene as found is a fundamental principle of forensic investigations. Investigators should document any changes and avoid altering the scene further unless absolutely necessary for safety or preservation.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Crime scene photography guidelines.
ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research): Best practices for documenting altered crime scenes.
Forensic Science Textbooks: Procedures for documenting contaminated or altered crime scenes.
In Summary:
You should photograph the scene in its new state, ensuring an accurate record of its current condition, making Option C correct.
When you are satisfied on reasonable grounds that an arrest of a youth (15 years) without a warrant is necessary in the circumstances, which section of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 overrides any other enactment in making an arrest?
A. Section 214.
B. Section 235.
C. Section 221.
Answer: A. Section 214.
Reasoning
Section 214 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989
Section 214 sets out the specific criteria under which a youth (aged 14–16 years) can be arrested without a warrant.
It overrides other enactments by imposing stricter conditions for the arrest of young people, reflecting the principle that arrest should be a last resort for youths.
Requirements Under Section 214
A youth may be arrested without a warrant only if one of the following applies:
It is necessary to prevent further offending.
The youth poses a risk to public safety.
Arrest is necessary to ensure the youth appears in court or complies with court-imposed obligations.
The section emphasizes the importance of considering alternatives to arrest whenever possible, such as warnings or referrals to youth justice services.
Why Option A is Correct
Section 214 is the overriding provision when arresting a youth without a warrant, ensuring the arrest aligns with principles of youth justice and rehabilitation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Section 235:
This section pertains to the warrant to remove a child or young person, not warrantless arrests.
C. Section 221:
This section relates to custody orders, which are different from the power to arrest a youth without a warrant.
Alignment with New Zealand Youth Justice Principles
The Act ensures that youths are treated differently from adults, focusing on rehabilitation and minimizing contact with the criminal justice system, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Sources
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, Section 214: Criteria for arresting a youth without a warrant.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for handling youth offenders.
Youth Justice Principles in New Zealand: Focus on alternatives to arrest and prioritizing rehabilitation.
In Summary:
Section 214 governs the circumstances under which a youth can be arrested without a warrant and overrides other enactments, making Option A correct.
A common approach path to and from the crime scene is established to:
A. Keep records of all people who enter and exit the scene.
B. Show where the scene examination zones are located.
C. Control access to the scene to prevent contamination.
Answer: C. Control access to the scene to prevent contamination.
Reasoning
Purpose of a Common Approach Path
A common approach path (CAP) is a designated route into and out of a crime scene. It is established to:
Prevent unnecessary disturbance or contamination of the scene.
Protect evidence from being accidentally damaged, moved, or introduced.
Maintain the integrity of the crime scene for forensic examination.
Why Option C is Correct
Controlling access to the scene is the primary purpose of establishing a common approach path. It ensures that evidence remains uncontaminated and intact, preserving its admissibility in court.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Keep records of all people who enter and exit the scene:
While maintaining a log of individuals who access the scene is important, it is not the purpose of a common approach path. Instead, this is managed by scene guards or a visitor log.
B. Show where the scene examination zones are located:
The CAP does not demarcate zones of examination. Its purpose is to provide a controlled and clean path to critical areas, not to define boundaries.
Forensic Best Practices
Forensic and investigative guidelines emphasize the establishment of a CAP as one of the first actions at a crime scene. This minimizes the risk of introducing contamination or altering evidence through inadvertent movement or destruction.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Crime scene management protocols.
ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research): Best practices for crime scene preservation.
Forensic Science Textbooks: The role of common approach paths in maintaining evidence integrity.
In Summary:
The common approach path is primarily established to control access and prevent contamination of the crime scene, making Option C correct.
Question 43
During a fight at a very crowded local bar, Steve grabs a pool cue and starts swinging it around. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone but gets carried away and hits a bar patron around the head. The injuries to the bar patron consist of a fractured eye socket and fractured skull. The most appropriate way to describe Steve’s actions in the bar is that he:
A. Acted with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any person.
B. Acted with the intent to injure any person.
C. Acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Answer: C. Acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Reasoning
Understanding Reckless Disregard
Reckless disregard occurs when a person’s actions demonstrate a complete disregard for the safety of others, even if there was no intent to cause harm.
In this case, Steve swung a pool cue recklessly in a crowded bar, which creates a foreseeable risk of harm. Even though he did not intend to hurt anyone, his actions showed a lack of concern for the potential consequences.
Analysis of Steve’s Actions
Intent to cause grievous bodily harm (Option A):
There is no evidence that Steve intended to cause such severe injuries. His actions were reckless but not purposeful in targeting or intending to harm anyone.
Intent to injure (Option B):
Similarly, Steve’s swinging of the pool cue was not motivated by a desire to injure anyone, as he was described as “not wanting to hurt anyone.”
Reckless disregard (Option C):
Steve acted without regard for the safety of others, which satisfies the legal standard for recklessness under New Zealand law. The severity of the injuries supports the categorization of his actions as reckless disregard.
Legal Precedents and Definitions
The concept of reckless disregard is well-defined in New Zealand criminal law, where the focus is on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of harm resulting from the conduct.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Provisions related to reckless disregard and grievous bodily harm.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on categorizing offences based on intent versus recklessness.
Case Law: R v Harney [1987] and similar cases that discuss reckless disregard for the safety of others.
In Summary:
Steve’s actions are best described as reckless disregard for the safety of others, given his lack of intent to harm but his failure to consider the potential consequences of swinging a pool cue in a crowded bar. This makes Option C correct.
Question 44
You have RGTB that stolen property is located in a garage at a local address and execute a search warrant. No one is present when you arrive, and you see the garage has a security alarm and it is armed. You use s110 and call a security technician to help you gain entry to the garage. You must then:
A. Provide detailed instructions about your request to the technician.
B. Accompany the technician on entry and provide reasonable supervision.
C. Request the technician contacts you when he has gained entry.
Answer: B. Accompany the technician on entry and provide reasonable supervision.
Reasoning
Understanding Section 110 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 110 allows law enforcement officers executing a search warrant to request assistance from other individuals (e.g., a security technician) to gain entry, operate equipment, or perform other functions necessary for executing the warrant.
However, the officer remains responsible for the supervision and oversight of the search process.
Why Option B is Correct
Accompanying the technician and providing reasonable supervision ensures that:
The search remains compliant with the warrant and legal protocols.
No actions are taken by the technician that could compromise the evidence or exceed the scope of the warrant.
The integrity of the search is maintained, minimizing risks of legal challenges.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Provide detailed instructions about your request to the technician:
While instructions are important, they do not absolve the officer of their responsibility to directly supervise the entry and actions taken under the warrant.
C. Request the technician contacts you when he has gained entry:
Allowing the technician to enter and work unsupervised could result in procedural breaches or evidence tampering, violating the officer’s duty of control over the search.
Legal and Practical Considerations
Supervising third-party assistance ensures compliance with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and preserves the integrity of the operation.
Failure to supervise could lead to accusations of misconduct or inadmissibility of evidence in court.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 110 – Use of assistance in executing a search warrant.
New Zealand Police Manual: Best practices for search warrant execution and managing third-party involvement.
In Summary:
When engaging a security technician under Section 110, police must accompany and reasonably supervise their actions to ensure compliance with the warrant and to maintain the search’s integrity. This makes Option B the correct answer.
Question 45
A witness with intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairment:
A. Should not be called upon to perform as a reliable witness in court.
B. Requires a support person in all interaction with police and the court.
C. Is a witness entitled to special consideration from police and others.
Answer: C. Is a witness entitled to special consideration from police and others.
Reasoning
Definition of a Witness with Impairment
A witness with intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairment may face challenges in effectively communicating or understanding processes during investigations or court proceedings.
New Zealand law and police practice emphasize the need for special consideration to ensure these witnesses are treated fairly and respectfully.
Why Option C is Correct
Witnesses with impairments are entitled to special consideration, as outlined in the Evidence Act 2006 and Victims’ Rights Act 2002.
This includes accommodating their needs (e.g., using simplified language, ensuring a calm environment, or providing support persons) to facilitate their participation and ensure their rights are protected.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Should not be called upon to perform as a reliable witness in court:
This is incorrect and discriminatory. A person’s impairment does not automatically render them unreliable. Courts and police must adapt processes to enable the witness to provide reliable testimony.
B. Requires a support person in all interaction with police and the court:
While support persons are often provided, this is not always mandatory. The necessity is assessed based on the individual’s specific needs and circumstances.
Legal Frameworks Supporting Special Consideration
The Evidence Act 2006 provides for alternative ways of giving evidence, such as video recording or using communication assistance, for witnesses with impairments.
The New Zealand Police Manual emphasizes flexibility and sensitivity when dealing with vulnerable witnesses to uphold fairness.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Provisions for vulnerable witnesses and alternative ways of giving evidence.
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Ensures fair treatment of all witnesses, particularly those requiring special consideration.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for interacting with witnesses with impairments.
In Summary:
A witness with an intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairment is entitled to special consideration from police and others to ensure their rights and needs are respected, making Option C correct.
Question 46
Whilst executing a search warrant for stolen property, you open a hallway cupboard and see a large ziplock bag that contains what you are certain is cannabis plant material. Under Section 123 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you may:
A. Seize the item in the interim while a search warrant is being prepared.
B. Seize the item for the purpose of further analysis.
C. Seize the item if you have reasonable grounds to believe you could have seized the item under any search warrant you could have obtained.
Answer: C. Seize the item if you have reasonable grounds to believe you could have seized the item under any search warrant you could have obtained.
Reasoning
Section 123 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 123 governs the seizure of items discovered incidentally while executing a search warrant for something else.
Police may seize items not covered by the original search warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe:
The item is evidential material related to an offence.
The item could have been lawfully seized under a separate search warrant.
Application to the Scenario
The ziplock bag containing cannabis is clearly identifiable as evidential material related to a potential offence (possession or distribution of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
Although the search warrant was issued for stolen property, you can seize the cannabis if it meets the criteria under Section 123.
Why Option C is Correct
Option C aligns with Section 123, which allows for the seizure of items incidentally discovered during a lawful search, provided they could have been seized under a separate warrant.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Seize the item in the interim while a search warrant is being prepared:
This is incorrect because the cannabis can be seized immediately under Section 123 without needing a separate warrant.
B. Seize the item for the purpose of further analysis:
While further analysis might occur after seizure, this option does not address the legal justification for seizing the cannabis under Section 123.
Legal and Practical Considerations
The discovery of the cannabis must be documented, and the seizure should be included in the search warrant report to ensure transparency and accountability.
Failing to seize the cannabis could lead to the loss of evidential material related to a criminal offence.
Question 47
John Smith is a well-known receiver of stolen property. You apply for a search warrant to search his residential address. There are no extenuating circumstances that will prevent your execution of the warrant without delay. What is the normal period the warrant will be valid for?
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 30 days.
B. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days.
C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 21 days.
Answer: C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 21 days.
Reasoning
Validity of a Search Warrant
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, the default validity period for a search warrant is a maximum of 21 days from the date it is issued.
This period is specified by the issuing officer and must not exceed the statutory limit unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Why Option C is Correct
21 Days Maximum:
The Act explicitly states that the issuing officer must specify the warrant’s validity, but it cannot exceed 21 days from the date of issue.
This timeframe ensures that warrants are executed promptly and remain relevant to the investigation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 30 days:
This exceeds the statutory limit and is incorrect unless there are specific legislative provisions (not applicable in this scenario).
B. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days:
While some warrants may be executed within a shorter period, the default maximum is 21 days, not 14.
Execution Without Delay
Even though the warrant is valid for up to 21 days, officers are expected to execute it as soon as practicable unless there are operational reasons for delay.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section outlining the validity period of search warrants.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for obtaining and executing search warrants.
In Summary:
A search warrant is valid for a period specified by the issuing officer, not exceeding 21 days, making Option C the correct answer.
Question 48
An appreciation is the mental process, the written plan:
A. Is primarily for use in discussion or briefing events with colleagues and supervisors.
B. Records decision making and shows why a certain course of action was decided.
C. Shows that the investigator has done their job thoroughly and knows their responsibilities.
Answer: B. Records decision making and shows why a certain course of action was decided.
Reasoning
Definition of an Appreciation
An appreciation is both a mental process and a written plan used in investigative and operational contexts.
Its primary purpose is to analyze a situation, evaluate options, and justify the chosen course of action. It provides clarity and accountability for decision-making.
Why Option B is Correct
“Records decision making and shows why a certain course of action was decided” captures the essence of an appreciation.
It emphasizes the documentation of thought processes and decisions, ensuring transparency and providing a clear rationale for actions taken during an investigation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Is primarily for use in discussion or briefing events with colleagues and supervisors:
While an appreciation can be used during discussions or briefings, this is a secondary purpose. The primary function is to document the reasoning behind decisions.
C. Shows that the investigator has done their job thoroughly and knows their responsibilities:
Although an appreciation demonstrates thoroughness, its main purpose is not to showcase competency but to provide a record of decision-making.
Importance in Investigations
An appreciation helps investigators and supervisors:
Ensure that decisions are well-founded.
Provide a documented trail for accountability.
Communicate the rationale to stakeholders, including courts or review boards, if necessary.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for investigative planning and the use of appreciations.
Operational Decision-Making Frameworks: Emphasize the importance of recording decisions and their rationale.
In Summary:
An appreciation records decision-making and provides a rationale for actions taken, making Option B correct.
Late at night, you are called to a suspicious fire at a school. While cordoning the scene, you locate and search a male teenager. Newspaper and a can of accelerant are found in his carry bag. He refuses to tell you his name. Your caution should make sure he understands:
A. You can arrest him if he continues to refuse to give you his name and address.
B. You just want to ask him some questions before deciding what you should do.
C. You know he has something to do with the fire, so he should start talking now.
Answer: A. You can arrest him if he continues to refuse to give you his name and address.
Reasoning
Legal Authority Under New Zealand Law
Under the Summary Offences Act 1981, Section 39, a person can be required to provide their name and address if they are reasonably suspected of committing an offence.
If the person refuses or fails to comply, they may be arrested to establish their identity.
Why Option A is Correct
The caution informs the teenager of the legal obligation to provide their name and address.
Explaining that failure to comply may result in arrest ensures the individual understands the consequences of non-compliance and provides an opportunity for voluntary cooperation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. You just want to ask him some questions before deciding what you should do:
This is misleading. The primary issue here is the teenager’s refusal to provide their identity, not a general inquiry. The caution must address the legal obligation to provide their name and address.
C. You know he has something to do with the fire, so he should start talking now:
This statement is inappropriate as it implies guilt and could be seen as coercive or prejudicial, violating procedural fairness and the teenager’s rights.
Youth-Specific Considerations
When dealing with youth, police must adhere to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ensuring fair treatment and avoiding undue pressure or coercion.
Practical Steps
The caution should clearly and respectfully communicate the legal requirement and potential consequences of refusing to comply.
If the teenager continues to refuse, arrest may be warranted to establish identity, but this must be a last resort.
Sources
Summary Offences Act 1981 (NZ): Section 39 – Requirement to provide name and address.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for handling situations involving refusal to provide identity.
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989: Youth-specific legal obligations.
In Summary:
If the teenager refuses to provide their name and address, you must caution them that they can be arrested for non-compliance, making Option A correct.
Question 50
Joe and Steve break into a vehicle parked up a residential driveway. They rip the GPS system from the dashboard and take a mountain bike from the boot of the vehicle. As they run down the driveway, they are confronted by the owner, who attempts to stop them from getting away. Steve punches the homeowner in the face, causing him to fall to the ground, and Joe and Steve run away. What is the most appropriate assault offence?
A. Aggravated assault (Section 192 Crimes Act 1961).
B. Common assault (Section 9 Summary Offences Act 1981).
C. Injuring with intent (Section 189 Crimes Act 1961).
Answer: A. Aggravated assault (Section 192 Crimes Act 1961).
Reasoning
Definition of Aggravated Assault (Section 192, Crimes Act 1961)
Aggravated assault occurs when an assault is committed in the course of another offence, such as burglary or theft, or in circumstances that increase the seriousness of the crime.
In this case, Steve punches the homeowner to facilitate their escape with stolen property, which escalates the seriousness of the assault.
Analysis of the Scenario
Elements of Aggravated Assault:
Assault Occurred: Steve punched the homeowner, causing him to fall to the ground.
During Another Offence: The assault took place as part of the theft (breaking into the vehicle and stealing items).
Increased Seriousness: The act of assaulting the homeowner to aid in their escape demonstrates a disregard for personal safety, elevating the offence to aggravated assault.
Why Option A is Correct
Aggravated assault (Section 192) appropriately describes the offence because the assault is tied to the ongoing criminal conduct of theft and burglary, making the offence more severe.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Common assault (Section 9, Summary Offences Act 1981):
This is incorrect because common assault applies to less serious cases where no aggravating circumstances are present. In this case, the assault occurred in the course of theft, elevating its severity.
C. Injuring with intent (Section 189, Crimes Act 1961):
This requires proof of intent to cause specific harm or injury. In this scenario, there is no indication that Steve intended to cause serious injury to the homeowner, only to facilitate their escape.
Legal Implications
Aggravated assault reflects the seriousness of using violence during the commission of another crime, emphasizing the need for accountability in such cases.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ):
Section 192 – Aggravated assault.
Section 189 – Injuring with intent.
Summary Offences Act 1981 (NZ): Section 9 – Common assault.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for classifying assault offences.
In Summary:
The offence committed is aggravated assault because the assault occurred during the commission of a theft and involved violence to aid in their escape, making Option A correct.
Question 51
A child or young person (CYP) can nominate an adult to provide support when they are being interviewed by Police. Which of the following statements best describes the person considered to be the most appropriate for the role?
A. Any mature and empathetic person.
B. An educational or welfare representative.
C. An adult member of their family or whānau.
Answer: C. An adult member of their family or whānau.
Reasoning
Role of a Support Person for a CYP During Police Interviews
Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, children and young persons (CYP) have the right to nominate a support person during police interviews.
The support person provides emotional and practical assistance to help the CYP understand and navigate the process, ensuring their rights and welfare are protected.
Why Option C is Correct
An adult member of their family or whānau is generally considered the most appropriate support person because:
They have an established relationship of trust and understanding with the CYP.
Their presence can help the CYP feel more comfortable and less intimidated during the interview process.
This aligns with the principles of family-centered approaches in youth justice, which are emphasized in New Zealand’s legal framework.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Any mature and empathetic person:
While maturity and empathy are important qualities, the suitability of a support person is not solely based on these traits. Preference is given to a family or whānau member unless there are compelling reasons otherwise (e.g., conflict of interest).
B. An educational or welfare representative:
These individuals may act as support persons if a family member is unavailable or unsuitable, but they are not the default choice. Family or whānau is prioritized unless circumstances prevent it.
Legal Framework and Best Practices
The Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and New Zealand Police Manual emphasize the importance of ensuring that CYP are supported by individuals they trust, with family being the first preference unless it is not in the CYP’s best interest.
Sources
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989: Provisions for CYP rights during police interactions.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for interviewing children and young persons.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC): Emphasizes the role of family in supporting children’s rights and well-being.
In Summary:
The most appropriate support person for a CYP during a police interview is typically an adult member of their family
Question 52
Jo Brown, heading home after a night in town, is kicked and punched by a group of offenders. As a result of the assault, Jo suffers severe bruising to his face but develops severe and ongoing depression and is unable to be left alone at night. In relation to Sections 188-193 of the Crimes Act 1961, Jo is considered to have been:
A. Maimed.
B. Injured.
C. Disfigured.
B. Injured.
Question 53
An offender kicks a victim several times in the torso and splits their spleen. Which of the following charges is the most appropriate?
A. With intent to injure, wounds.
B. With intent to cause grievous bodily harm, maims.
C. With intent to injure, injures.
Answer: B. With intent to cause grievous bodily harm, maims.
Reasoning
Understanding the Nature of the Offence
The offender’s actions involved kicking the victim multiple times in the torso, causing a severe injury—a split spleen.
A split spleen constitutes grievous bodily harm (GBH) because it is a serious injury that can endanger life or result in permanent impairment.
Legal Definitions Under the Crimes Act 1961
“Maims”: Refers to causing lasting or severe harm to a person, including grievous bodily harm.
“Grievous bodily harm” (GBH): Involves serious injuries that significantly impact a person’s health or bodily integrity. A ruptured spleen qualifies as GBH.
Intent to Cause GBH: Demonstrated by multiple forceful kicks to a vulnerable area of the body, showing a deliberate and reckless disregard for the victim’s well-being.
Why Option B is Correct
The severity of the injury (split spleen) and the offender’s actions (kicking repeatedly with force) clearly demonstrate intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
The term “maims” accurately captures the lasting and serious nature of the injury.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. With intent to injure, wounds:
This charge does not reflect the severity of the injury. A wound typically refers to a break in the skin or superficial injury, which is far less severe than a split spleen.
C. With intent to injure, injures:
Although intent to injure applies to lesser harm, it does not adequately address the grievous nature of the victim’s injury.
Legal and Practical Implications
Charging the offender with intent to cause grievous bodily harm ensures that the charge reflects the deliberate infliction of severe harm and the serious consequences of their actions.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Sections 188–189 – Definitions and classifications of injuries and harm.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for charging based on severity of harm.
Case Law: Relevant rulings on grievous bodily harm and maiming in assault cases.
In Summary:
The most appropriate charge is “With intent to cause grievous bodily harm, maims”, given the deliberate and forceful actions resulting in a severe injury (split spleen). This makes Option B correct.
Question 54
If the O/C Initial Action party locates an item they believe is going to rapidly deteriorate, the best course of action is to:
A. Notify the O/C Investigation and await further instructions.
B. Leave it in situ and await arrival of a photographer.
C. Take immediate action to preserve the item.
C. Take immediate action to preserve the item.
If an item is at risk of rapid deterioration, the priority is to take immediate action to preserve it. This aligns with best practices for handling evidence to ensure it remains intact and uncontaminated for investigation and forensic examination.
Question 55
When there are multiple witnesses to a serious incident/offence, the investigator should:
A. Listen to their collective recall of events and assess who can provide the most accurate recall of the incident.
B. Separate the witnesses as soon as feasible, ask them to wait, and call for advice and assistance.
C. Separate the witnesses, conduct a brief initial interview with each, and gather witness details.
Answer: C. Separate the witnesses, conduct a brief initial interview with each, and gather witness details.
Reasoning
Importance of Witness Management
Managing multiple witnesses to a serious incident requires a structured approach to ensure accurate and unbiased accounts.
Witnesses should be separated to prevent them from influencing each other’s recollections and to maintain the integrity of their individual accounts.
Why Option C is Correct
Separating witnesses immediately and conducting brief initial interviews ensures that:
Each witness provides their own unbiased version of events.
The investigator can gather key details (e.g., identity, contact information, and a summary of observations).
Further detailed interviews can be planned based on the initial information.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Listen to their collective recall of events and assess who can provide the most accurate recall of the incident:
Allowing witnesses to share their recollections collectively risks cross-contamination of memories, where their accounts influence one another, reducing the reliability of the statements.
B. Separate the witnesses as soon as feasible, ask them to wait, and call for advice and assistance:
While separating witnesses is correct, failing to conduct brief initial interviews at the scene delays the gathering of time-sensitive information, which could be critical for the investigation.
Legal and Practical Implications
Separating witnesses and promptly recording their initial accounts ensures that their observations are preserved in the most accurate and reliable state, which is vital for building a credible case.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for managing multiple witnesses at a crime scene.
Best Practices for Witness Interviews: Emphasizes separating witnesses to avoid cross-contamination of their accounts.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Stresses the importance of maintaining the integrity of witness testimony.
In Summary:
The investigator should separate the witnesses, conduct brief initial interviews, and gather details to preserve the accuracy and reliability of their accounts, making Option C correct.
Question 56
You are considering charging someone with Burglary. Before you do, you must satisfy the Test for Prosecution contained in the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines. Which component of the test should you conduct first?
A. The evidential test – if the evidence meets the evidential test, we can then consider the public interest.
B. The public interest test – if prosecution is of benefit to the public, we can then consider the evidential test.
C. It doesn’t matter which order we complete the tests; we should always do both.
Answer: A. The evidential test – if the evidence meets the evidential test, we can then consider the public interest.
Reasoning
Understanding the Test for Prosecution
The Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines establish a two-part test to determine whether a prosecution should proceed:
Evidential Test: Ensures there is sufficient, reliable, and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Public Interest Test: Evaluates whether prosecuting the case serves the public interest, considering factors like the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim, and the broader societal implications.
Why the Evidential Test Must Be Conducted First
Without sufficient evidence to support a prosecution, there is no basis to consider the public interest.
Proceeding with a prosecution based solely on public interest without meeting the evidential threshold would undermine the justice system’s integrity.
Why Option A is Correct
The evidential test must always be completed first to determine if the case is legally viable. Only after passing this test should the public interest test be applied.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. The public interest test – if prosecution is of benefit to the public, we can then consider the evidential test:
This is incorrect because the public interest test cannot override a lack of evidence. The legal foundation of the case must always be established first.
C. It doesn’t matter which order we complete the tests; we should always do both:
This is incorrect because the tests are sequential. The evidential test is a prerequisite to the public interest test.
Legal Framework and Best Practices
Conducting the evidential test first ensures that cases proceed on a sound legal basis, avoiding misuse of judicial resources and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.
Sources
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (NZ): Provides the framework for applying the Test for Prosecution.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: Outlines requirements for evidential sufficiency in prosecutions.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for evaluating evidence and public interest in charging decisions.
In Summary:
The evidential test must be conducted first to confirm the case has a reasonable prospect of conviction. Once this is established, the public interest test can then be applied, making Option A correct.
Question 57
As a condition of the authorisation of your SW application, an IO may require you to complete:
A. A s104 search warrant report.
B. A S & S system SW outcome.
C. A post-warrant intelligence report.
Answer: A. A s104 search warrant report.
Reasoning
Requirements of Section 104 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 104 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 mandates that a report must be completed after a search warrant is executed.
This report provides a detailed account of the warrant’s execution, including:
The outcomes of the search.
Items seized.
Compliance with legal requirements.
Why Option A is Correct
A Section 104 search warrant report is a formal requirement to ensure transparency and accountability.
The Investigating Officer (IO) may specifically request this report as part of the search warrant’s authorization and execution process.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. A S & S system SW outcome:
While the Search and Surveillance system (S&S) may record outcomes, it does not replace the statutory requirement to complete a Section 104 report.
C. A post-warrant intelligence report:
Intelligence reports may be useful for operational purposes but are not a statutory requirement following a search warrant’s execution.
Legal and Practical Considerations
Completing the Section 104 report ensures that the search warrant process complies with statutory obligations and provides a record for judicial review, if necessary.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 104 – Post-execution reporting requirements.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for completing search warrant reports.
In Summary:
After executing a search warrant, a Section 104 report is required to document the search’s details and outcomes, making Option A correct.
Question 58
Pursuant to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you are searching a prisoner incidental to arrest. In his possession, you find a cell phone that you have established is stolen. When bailed an hour later, he asks for the cell phone back. What should you do?
A. Refuse to give him the cell phone back because it was seized in a lawful search.
B. Charge him in relation to the cell phone and retain possession of the property.
C. Give him the cell phone back.
Answer: B. Charge him in relation to the cell phone and retain possession of the property.
Reasoning
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 – Search Incident to Arrest
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, law enforcement officers have the authority to search a person and seize items in their possession that are connected to an offence.
The seized property may be retained if it is believed to be evidential material for a criminal charge.
Handling Stolen Property
In this case, the cell phone has been established as stolen. It is evidential material directly linked to the offence.
Retaining the phone is necessary to:
Preserve evidence for the prosecution.
Prevent the return of stolen property to the offender.
Why Option B is Correct
Charging the prisoner with an offence related to the stolen cell phone and retaining the property ensures:
Compliance with legal requirements for handling seized evidence.
The property is available for court proceedings.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Refuse to give him the cell phone back because it was seized in a lawful search:
While the phone was seized lawfully, further justification (i.e., charging him) is necessary to legally retain the property.
C. Give him the cell phone back:
Returning the phone would undermine the investigation, as the item is both stolen property and critical evidence for the charge.
Legal and Procedural Obligations
Officers must document the seizure and retention of the phone and explain its evidential value.
The cell phone may later be returned to its rightful owner following the resolution of the case.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Provisions for search and seizure.
Crimes Act 1961: Offences related to receiving or possessing stolen property.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on handling stolen property and evidential material.
In Summary:
The appropriate course of action is to charge the prisoner in relation to the cell phone and retain the property as evidence for the case. This makes Option B correct.
Question 59
Are pre-trial admissibility hearings available before both Judge-alone and jury trials?
A. No.
B. Pre-trial hearings are only for jury trials.
C. Yes.
A. No.
A serious assault has occurred at a private party. When you arrive at the scene, you wish to speak to the patrons about the assault. In the given circumstances, Police behaviour must reflect Guideline 1 of the Chief Justice Practice Note, which is:
A. You must not suggest through words or actions that a person must answer your questions.
B. You may arrest a person that refuses to answer your questions for obstruction.
C. You can remind a person who refuses to answer your questions that they can be legally penalised.
Answer: A. You must not suggest through words or actions that a person must answer your questions.
Reasoning
Chief Justice Practice Note – Guideline 1
Guideline 1 emphasizes that interviews or questioning by police must respect the rights of individuals, including their right to silence.
It explicitly states that police must not imply or suggest through words, tone, or actions that a person is required to answer questions, as this could be coercive and infringe on their rights.
Application to the Scenario
In this context, the patrons at the party are potential witnesses or persons of interest. While police may ask questions to gather information, they cannot force or imply an obligation to respond.
Individuals retain the right to decline to answer police questions unless specific legal obligations apply (e.g., providing name and address under certain circumstances).
Why Option A is Correct
Not suggesting an obligation to answer questions aligns with respecting the right to silence, a fundamental principle of New Zealand law.
Police can ask questions, but the responses must be voluntary and free from coercion.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. You may arrest a person that refuses to answer your questions for obstruction:
Refusing to answer questions is not an offence unless the person is legally required to provide specific information (e.g., identity). Arresting someone for merely exercising their right to silence is unlawful.
C. You can remind a person who refuses to answer your questions that they can be legally penalised:
This is incorrect and coercive. Penalizing someone for exercising their right to silence would violate their legal protections.
Legal Context
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23) protects individuals’ rights to silence when interacting with law enforcement.
Any implication that a person must answer police questions risks rendering their statements inadmissible in court.
Sources
Chief Justice Practice Note: Guidelines for police questioning and interviews.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Protections for individuals during police interactions.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for interviewing witnesses and persons of interest.
In Summary:
Police must ensure that their words or actions do not suggest an obligation to answer questions, respecting the individual’s right to silence. This makes Option A correct.
Question 61
Your completed SW application must show clear connections between:
A. The offence, any suspects, and any evidential material they may hold.
B. The offence, the target address, and evidential material sought there.
C. Any suspects, any offence, and evidential material for those offences.
Answer: B. The offence, the target address, and evidential material sought there.
Reasoning
Search Warrant Application Requirements
A search warrant (SW) application under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 must demonstrate clear and logical connections between:
The offence under investigation.
The specific location or address to be searched (target address).
The evidential material expected to be found at that address.
This ensures that the warrant is justified and that the search is targeted and lawful.
Why Option B is Correct
The connection between the offence, the target address, and the evidential material is fundamental to establish reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) that the search will yield evidence relevant to the investigation.
This specificity protects individuals’ rights by ensuring that searches are not overly broad or conducted without proper justification.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The offence, any suspects, and any evidential material they may hold:
This is incomplete because it does not establish the connection to the specific target address, which is a critical component of the warrant application.
C. Any suspects, any offence, and evidential material for those offences:
This is overly broad and lacks the necessary focus on the target address where the evidential material is believed to be located.
Legal Framework and Best Practices
A search warrant application must clearly articulate why the evidential material is believed to be at the specified address, ensuring compliance with legal standards and minimizing the risk of abuse of search powers.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Requirements for search warrant applications.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for preparing search warrant applications.
In Summary:
The SW application must clearly connect the offence, the target address, and the evidential material sought to justify the search. This makes Option B correct.
Question 62
Johnny bashed his partner Jill with a cricket bat in their front yard. Jill is badly injured and is taken to hospital. Neighbouring witnesses tell you Johnny left in a car taking the bat with him. They say no one else is inside the house. You now have RGTS an offence punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or more has occurred and RGTB that the bat is in Johnny’s car. Should you enter the house without warrant to search for evidential material?
A. Yes, you can enter under s14 to respond to risk to life or safety.
B. Yes, you can enter under s15 to avoid loss of evidential material (CADD).
C. No, because neither s15 nor s14 apply in the circumstances.
Answer: C. No, because neither s15 nor s14 apply in the circumstances.
Reasoning
Understanding Section 14 (Risk to Life or Safety)
Section 14 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows warrantless entry to premises if it is necessary to prevent risk to life or safety.
In this scenario, the immediate risk to Jill’s life or safety has been resolved because she has already been taken to the hospital. Thus, Section 14 does not apply.
Understanding Section 15 (CADD – Concealed, Altered, Damaged, or Destroyed)
Section 15 allows warrantless entry if there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidential material may be CADD if the search is delayed to obtain a warrant.
Here, the cricket bat is believed to be in Johnny’s car, not the house. Since there is no evidential material believed to be inside the house, Section 15 cannot justify a warrantless entry.
Why Option C is Correct
Neither Section 14 nor Section 15 applies:
Section 14 does not apply because there is no ongoing risk to life or safety.
Section 15 does not apply because there is no RGTB that evidential material is located inside the house.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Yes, you can enter under s14 to respond to risk to life or safety:
This is incorrect because the immediate danger has been addressed, and there is no ongoing risk to life or safety.
B. Yes, you can enter under s15 to avoid loss of evidential material (CADD):
This is incorrect because the cricket bat (evidential material) is believed to be in Johnny’s car, not in the house.
Best Course of Action
Apply for a search warrant for Johnny’s car to recover the cricket bat. Avoid entering the house without proper legal justification to ensure compliance with the law and preserve the admissibility of evidence.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Sections 14 and 15 – Warrantless entry provisions.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on warrantless searches and evidence preservation.
In Summary:
Since neither Section 14 nor Section 15 applies in this situation, you cannot enter the house without a warrant. The correct answer is Option C.
Question 63
Johnny bashed his partner Jill with a cricket bat in their front yard. Jill is badly injured and is taken to hospital. Neighbouring witnesses tell you Johnny left in a car taking the bat with him. They say no one else is inside the house. You now have RGTS an offence punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or more has occurred and RGTB that the bat is in Johnny’s car. Should you enter the house without warrant to search for evidential material?
A. Yes, you can enter under s14 to respond to risk to life or safety.
B. Yes, you can enter under s15 to avoid loss of evidential material (CADD).
C. No, because neither s15 nor s14 apply in the circumstances.
Answer: C. No, because neither s15 nor s14 apply in the circumstances.
Reasoning
Understanding Section 14 (Risk to Life or Safety)
Section 14 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows warrantless entry to premises if it is necessary to prevent risk to life or safety.
In this scenario, the immediate risk to Jill’s life or safety has been resolved because she has already been taken to the hospital. Thus, Section 14 does not apply.
Understanding Section 15 (CADD – Concealed, Altered, Damaged, or Destroyed)
Section 15 allows warrantless entry if there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidential material may be CADD if the search is delayed to obtain a warrant.
Here, the cricket bat is believed to be in Johnny’s car, not the house. Since there is no evidential material believed to be inside the house, Section 15 cannot justify a warrantless entry.
Why Option C is Correct
Neither Section 14 nor Section 15 applies:
Section 14 does not apply because there is no ongoing risk to life or safety.
Section 15 does not apply because there is no RGTB that evidential material is located inside the house.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Yes, you can enter under s14 to respond to risk to life or safety:
This is incorrect because the immediate danger has been addressed, and there is no ongoing risk to life or safety.
B. Yes, you can enter under s15 to avoid loss of evidential material (CADD):
This is incorrect because the cricket bat (evidential material) is believed to be in Johnny’s car, not in the house.
Best Course of Action
Apply for a search warrant for Johnny’s car to recover the cricket bat. Avoid entering the house without proper legal justification to ensure compliance with the law and preserve the admissibility of evidence.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Sections 14 and 15 – Warrantless entry provisions.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on warrantless searches and evidence preservation.
In Summary:
Since neither Section 14 nor Section 15 applies in this situation, you cannot enter the house without a warrant. The correct answer is Option C.
Question 64
Victims Rights Act 2002 Section 29 offences are defined as:
A. Sexual or serious assault resulting in injury, death or being rendered incapable or leading to the victim having fears for their safety or the safety of their family.
B. Sexual and/or physical, emotional violence offences against another person in a relationship as defined by the New Zealand Police Domestic Violence Policy.
C. Serious assault resulting in injury, death or a person being rendered incapable (including road accidents) where the victim is entitled to specialist support.
Answer: A. Sexual or serious assault resulting in injury, death or being rendered incapable or leading to the victim having fears for their safety or the safety of their family.
Reasoning
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 – Section 29
Section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 defines serious offences that invoke specific rights for victims.
These include offences such as sexual or serious physical assaults, particularly those that result in:
Injury.
Death.
Incapacity.
Ongoing fear for personal or family safety.
Why Option A is Correct
Option A aligns with the definition provided in Section 29, which emphasizes offences causing significant harm or fear, ensuring victims of these serious offences receive enhanced rights and protections.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Sexual and/or physical, emotional violence offences against another person in a relationship as defined by the New Zealand Police Domestic Violence Policy:
This definition overlaps with domestic violence policy but does not comprehensively address the broader range of serious offences (e.g., assaults not in domestic settings).
C. Serious assault resulting in injury, death or a person being rendered incapable (including road accidents) where the victim is entitled to specialist support:
While partially correct, this excludes sexual offences and does not accurately reflect the broader scope of Section 29.
Importance of Section 29 Offences
Victims of Section 29 offences are entitled to additional support and rights, such as victim impact statements, specialist services, and regular updates on case progress.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Section 29 – Definition of offences and victims’ entitlements.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on victim support and entitlements under the Act.
In Summary:
Section 29 offences are defined as sexual or serious assaults causing injury, death, incapacity, or fear for safety, making Option A correct.
Question 65
If a witness becomes a suspect during an interview, then the interviewer should:
A. Caution, shift to procedures for interviewing suspects, and ensure the interview is visually recorded.
B. Switch to conversation management to control the suspect and continue to interview.
C. Caution and detain the witness, close the interview, and inform their supervisor.
Answer: A. Caution, shift to procedures for interviewing suspects, and ensure the interview is visually recorded.
Reasoning
Legal and Procedural Requirements
If a witness becomes a suspect during an interview, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23) and the Evidence Act 2006 require the interviewer to:
Inform the person of their rights (e.g., the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel).
Transition to the procedures required for interviewing suspects, ensuring their rights are protected.
Visually record the interview to maintain transparency and ensure the admissibility of evidence.
Why Option A is Correct
Cautioning and transitioning to suspect interview procedures complies with legal obligations and ensures the suspect is aware of their rights.
A visual record provides a clear and unbiased account of the interview, safeguarding the integrity of the process.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Switch to conversation management to control the suspect and continue to interview:
Continuing the interview without cautioning the individual and adhering to suspect interview procedures risks breaching their rights and rendering the evidence inadmissible.
C. Caution and detain the witness, close the interview, and inform their supervisor:
Closing the interview prematurely may result in the loss of valuable evidence. Detention is not always appropriate unless justified by the circumstances (e.g., risk of flight or further offences).
Best Practices for Transitioning an Interview
Clearly inform the individual of the shift in their status (from witness to suspect).
Pause the interview to ensure the suspect is fully aware of their rights and consults legal counsel if necessary.
Resume the interview only under suspect interview procedures, ensuring compliance with legal standards.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Section 23 – Rights of persons arrested or detained.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Requirements for admissible evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for handling witnesses transitioning to suspects.
In Summary:
If a witness becomes a suspect, the interviewer must caution them, switch to suspect procedures, and visually record the interview, making Option A correct.
Question 66
Section 18 Warrantless searches associated with arms gives you the power to do which one of the following:
A. Search persons or possessions (including vehicle) and place, enter place or vehicle, seize and detain firearms, seize and detain firearms licence.
B. Search persons or possessions (including vehicle) and place, seize and detain firearms and detain firearms licence.
C. Search persons and place (excluding vehicle), enter place, seize and detain firearms, seize and detain firearms licence.
Answer: A. Search persons or possessions (including vehicle) and place, enter place or vehicle, seize and detain firearms, seize and detain firearms licence.
Reasoning
Section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
This section provides powers to conduct warrantless searches related to arms, which include:
Search Authority:
Police can search persons, possessions, vehicles, and places if they have reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) the presence of firearms or related items poses a risk to public or individual safety.
Seizure Authority:
Police can seize firearms, ammunition, and firearms licences if these items are believed to be associated with illegal activity or pose a safety risk.
Why Option A is Correct
Option A correctly captures the full extent of the powers under Section 18, which include:
Searching persons, possessions, vehicles, and places.
Entering vehicles and places without a warrant.
Seizing and detaining firearms, ammunition, and firearms licences.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Search persons or possessions (including vehicle) and place, seize and detain firearms and detain firearms licence:
This option omits the authority to enter places or vehicles, which is an essential aspect of Section 18.
C. Search persons and place (excluding vehicle), enter place, seize and detain firearms, seize and detain firearms licence:
This option incorrectly excludes the power to search vehicles, which is explicitly included under Section 18.
Practical Importance of Section 18
These powers allow police to act swiftly and decisively in situations involving firearms, ensuring public safety without delay.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 18 – Warrantless searches related to arms.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for the application of Section 18 powers.
In Summary:
Section 18 provides police with the authority to search persons, possessions (including vehicles), and places; enter places or vehicles; and seize firearms, ammunition, and firearms licences, making Option A correct.
Question 67
If your file has been sent back because you have been tasked with completing remedial work before case management discussions, what is the latest time that the file needs to be with the PPS office?
A. 1 week after you are tasked with the work.
B. Five working days before the case management discussion.
C. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed.
Answer: B. Five working days before the case management discussion.
Reasoning
Case Management Discussion (CMD) Preparation
Case management discussions (CMDs) are essential for streamlining court processes by addressing procedural and evidential issues early.
If remedial work is required on a file, it must be completed and submitted to the Prosecution Practice Support (PPS) office within sufficient time for review and adjustments before the CMD.
Why Option B is Correct
Submitting the file five working days before the CMD provides the PPS office with adequate time to:
Review the updated file.
Ensure compliance with any outstanding tasks.
Make necessary preparations for the CMD.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. 1 week after you are tasked with the work:
This timeframe is arbitrary and does not align with procedural requirements tied to the CMD schedule.
C. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed:
Submitting the file on the same day the memorandum is due leaves no time for review or adjustments, potentially delaying the process.
Legal and Procedural Context
The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 emphasizes timely preparation and submission of case materials to avoid delays in the judicial process.
Police and prosecutors must work collaboratively to meet procedural deadlines.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Guidelines for case management discussions and filing requirements.
New Zealand Police Manual: Instructions for file preparation and submission for CMDs.
In Summary:
To ensure smooth CMD preparation, the file must be submitted to the PPS office five working days before the case management discussion, making Option B correct.
Question 68
You are in the carpark at the shopping mall when you hear a woman crying out that her handbag has been snatched. She tells you the offender ran off and got into the back of a van. You quickly locate and stop the van. In these circumstances, you would use s8 to enter the van to:
A. Seize the handbag.
B. Search the van.
C. Arrest the offender.
Answer: C. Arrest the offender.
Reasoning
Section 8 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 8 provides police with the authority to enter and search a place or vehicle without a warrant for the purpose of effecting an arrest, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is inside.
This power is primarily focused on securing the individual rather than immediately locating or retrieving evidential material.
Application to the Scenario
In this case:
The woman identifies the van as the escape vehicle.
The police locate the van shortly afterward, providing reasonable grounds to believe the offender is inside.
Entering the van under Section 8 is justified to arrest the offender, ensuring they do not escape further or pose additional risks.
Why Option C is Correct
Section 8 explicitly allows police to enter the van to effect an arrest, which is the primary objective in this situation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Seize the handbag:
Section 8 does not provide the authority to enter the van solely to seize evidential material (e.g., the handbag). A warrant or other legal provision would be needed for this purpose.
B. Search the van:
Similarly, searching the van is not the immediate justification under Section 8. The search may follow the arrest if necessary, under the appropriate powers.
Legal and Practical Considerations
Arresting the offender takes precedence as it prevents further flight or potential risks to the public. Evidence (e.g., the handbag) can be secured subsequently under appropriate search powers.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 8 – Entry for the purpose of arrest.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for warrantless entry and arrest procedures.
In Summary:
In these circumstances, you would use Section 8 to enter the van and arrest the offender, making Option C correct.
Question 69
You have a search warrant to enter and search a flat belonging to a woman who you have RGTB has stolen an iPod and other small electronic items. When you arrive, the woman and her two flatmates are at the address. You detain them under s118 (Powers of detention incidental to powers to search places and vehicles). Can you search the woman and her flatmates under s119?
A. No, you may only search the woman as you have RGTB you will find the evidential material on her.
B. Yes, as s119 permits a search of anyone found at the place when you have RGTB the evidential material will be found.
C. No, you cannot search the flatmates without first exercising a power of arrest.
Answer: B. Yes, as s119 permits a search of anyone found at the place when you have RGTB the evidential material will be found.
Reasoning
Section 119 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 119 allows police to search any person found at a place being searched under a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) that evidential material related to the offence being investigated may be on that person.
Application to the Scenario
You have a valid search warrant to search the flat for stolen electronic items.
RGTB applies not just to the woman (the warrant’s subject) but also to her flatmates, as they are present at the location and could reasonably be in possession of the stolen items.
Why Option B is Correct
Section 119 explicitly permits searching individuals present at the location, provided you have RGTB that they may have possession of evidential material.
In this scenario, the flatmates are at the flat where the stolen items are suspected to be, justifying the search under s119.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. No, you may only search the woman as you have RGTB you will find the evidential material on her:
This is incorrect because s119 extends the search powers to any person present if RGTB exists.
C. No, you cannot search the flatmates without first exercising a power of arrest:
This is incorrect because s119 does not require an arrest to search persons found at the search location.
Legal Context and Safeguards
Searches under s119 must be conducted respectfully and within the scope of the law. The presence of RGTB is critical to justify the search of any person on the premises.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 119 – Power to search persons found at the place being searched.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on search warrants and associated powers.
In Summary:
Under s119, you may search the woman and her flatmates if you have RGTB that they may have possession of evidential material, making Option B correct.
Question 70
When deciding whether to commence prosecution by laying charges, which of the following tests must be applied?
A. The prima facie test and the public interest test.
B. The prima facie test and the evidential test.
C. The evidential test and the public interest test.
Answer: C. The evidential test and the public interest test.
Reasoning
Prosecution Guidelines in New Zealand
The Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines outline two critical tests that must be satisfied before prosecution is initiated:
The Evidential Test: Ensures there is sufficient, reliable, and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.
The Public Interest Test: Evaluates whether prosecuting the case serves the public interest, considering factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim, and resource implications.
Why Option C is Correct
Prosecution can only proceed if:
The evidential test confirms there is a solid basis for a case.
The public interest test justifies allocating resources and pursuing legal action, considering the broader implications of the prosecution.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The prima facie test and the public interest test:
The prima facie test (i.e., whether there is some evidence to support the charge) is a minimal standard and is not sufficient for modern prosecution decisions, which require the evidential test.
B. The prima facie test and the evidential test:
The public interest test is also necessary to ensure that pursuing the case aligns with broader societal and justice considerations, beyond merely meeting evidential requirements.
Legal and Practical Considerations
Applying both the evidential and public interest tests ensures that prosecutions are both legally sound and socially justified, preventing misuse of judicial resources and undue harm to individuals.
Sources
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (NZ): Framework for evidential and public interest tests.
New Zealand Police Manual: Decision-making protocols for laying charges.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: Emphasizes adherence to prosecution standards.
In Summary:
When deciding to commence prosecution, both the evidential test and the public interest test must be applied, making Option C correct.
Question 71
When you are interviewing a male suspect under caution about a minor assault on his partner, he makes admissions about an unrelated serious assault on another person. What should you do?
A. Shift the focus of the interview to the new offence as he is already under caution.
B. Re-administer the caution but continue to interview him about the original offence.
C. Re-administer the caution before interviewing him about the new offence.
Answer: C. Re-administer the caution before interviewing him about the new offence.
Reasoning
Legal and Procedural Obligations
When a suspect under caution begins to make admissions about an unrelated offence, police must ensure that the suspect understands their rights concerning the new offence.
This is critical to ensure that any statements made about the unrelated offence are voluntary, informed, and admissible in court.
Why Option C is Correct
Re-administering the caution ensures that the suspect:
Is fully aware that the new line of questioning pertains to a different offence.
Understands their right to silence and the right to legal counsel for the new offence.
This approach complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which requires suspects to be informed of their rights whenever the scope of questioning changes significantly.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Shift the focus of the interview to the new offence as he is already under caution:
This is incorrect because the initial caution was specific to the minor assault. A new caution is required for the unrelated offence to ensure the suspect’s rights are upheld.
B. Re-administer the caution but continue to interview him about the original offence:
This is incorrect because the focus must now shift to the unrelated offence. The new caution must be administered before proceeding with questions about the serious assault.
Best Practices in Suspect Interviews
Interviews must be conducted in a manner that is clear, fair, and consistent with the suspect’s rights.
Clear distinctions between offences help avoid confusion and ensure statements are legally admissible.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Rights of individuals during police questioning.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for interviewing suspects under caution.
Evidence Act 2006: Admissibility requirements for suspect statements.
In Summary:
Before questioning the suspect about the unrelated serious assault, you must re-administer the caution to ensure the suspect understands their rights concerning the new offence. This makes Option C correct.
Question 72
Jo Brown, heading home after a night in town, is kicked and punched by a group of offenders. As a result of the assault, Jo suffers severe bruising to his face but develops severe and ongoing depression and is unable to be left alone at night. In relation to Sections 188-193 of the Crimes Act 1961, Jo is considered to have been:
A. Injured.
B. Disfigured.
C. Maimed.
A. Injured.
Question 73
Steve and Keith are walking down the road together. Steve is wearing an All Whites football jersey. Henry wants the football jersey, so he walks up to Keith, punches him in the face, and yells at him to tell Steve to give up his jersey or he will punch him again. Steve, fearing that Keith might be hurt, takes off his jersey and gives it to Henry. What offence has Henry committed?
A. Theft, as the violence was used on Keith but the property was taken from Steve.
B. Robbery, as Henry has used violence and stolen property.
C. Aggravated robbery, as Henry has used violence on more than one person and stolen property.
Answer: B. Robbery, as Henry has used violence and stolen property.
Reasoning
Definition of Robbery Under the Crimes Act 1961
Robbery is defined in Section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961 as theft accompanied by violence or the threat of violence to any person to obtain the stolen property or prevent resistance to its taking.
In this scenario, Henry:
Used violence by punching Keith.
Threatened further violence to intimidate Steve into surrendering the jersey.
Stole property (the jersey) as a result of this intimidation and violence.
Why Option B is Correct
Henry’s actions fulfill the elements of robbery:
Violence was used on Keith.
Threats of violence were made to coerce Steve into giving up the jersey.
The jersey was taken through these violent actions, qualifying the offence as robbery.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Theft, as the violence was used on Keith but the property was taken from Steve:
This is incorrect because the use of violence elevates the offence to robbery. Theft does not involve violence or threats.
C. Aggravated robbery, as Henry has used violence on more than one person and stolen property:
This is incorrect because aggravated robbery under Section 235 requires additional aggravating factors (e.g., using a weapon or being part of a group). Henry’s actions involve violence but do not meet the threshold for aggravated robbery.
Legal Implications
The use of violence and threats to obtain property makes this a serious offence classified as robbery.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 234 – Definition of robbery.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for identifying and classifying robbery offences.
In Summary:
Henry committed robbery by using violence and threats to obtain the jersey from Steve, making Option B correct.
Question 74
The hot zone in a serious crime scene is best described as:
A. A zone where forensic analysis of exhibits takes place.
B. A zone where scene guards record movements of staff to and from the scene.
C. That part of the scene requiring examination and evidence collection.
Answer: C. That part of the scene requiring examination and evidence collection.
Reasoning
Definition of a “Hot Zone” in Crime Scene Management
The hot zone in a crime scene refers to the critical area where the offence occurred and where evidence is likely to be present.
It is the most sensitive part of the scene and requires careful handling to preserve evidence and avoid contamination.
Why Option C is Correct
The hot zone is the area that requires detailed examination and evidence collection, including physical items, biological material, and forensic samples.
This aligns with the definition of a hot zone as the focal point of the crime scene investigation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. A zone where forensic analysis of exhibits takes place:
Forensic analysis typically occurs off-site (e.g., at a laboratory), not at the crime scene itself.
B. A zone where scene guards record movements of staff to and from the scene:
Scene guards control access to the hot zone and maintain logs, but this does not define the hot zone itself.
Best Practices for Handling the Hot Zone
Access to the hot zone should be strictly controlled to prevent contamination.
Investigators must wear protective gear and follow protocols to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for crime scene management and evidence collection.
Forensic Science Standards: Best practices for defining and managing zones within crime scenes.
In Summary:
The hot zone is the part of the scene requiring examination and evidence collection, making Option C correct.
Question 75
Representation refers to the behaviour of the interviewer who:
A. Does not advise the suspect of their right to a lawyer.
B. Promises a favour in return for a requested action.
C. Allows the suspect to have a support person in the interview.
Answer: B. Promises a favour in return for a requested action.
Reasoning
Definition of Representation in the Context of Police Interviews
“Representation” refers to any explicit or implied promises, inducements, or statements made by an interviewer to influence a suspect’s cooperation or actions during an interview.
This behaviour is considered improper as it can undermine the voluntariness and admissibility of any statements obtained from the suspect.
Why Option B is Correct
Promising a favour in return for a requested action (e.g., confessing or providing evidence) constitutes representation.
Such behaviour is prohibited under the Evidence Act 2006 because it may coerce the suspect, making their statements inadmissible in court.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Does not advise the suspect of their right to a lawyer:
Failing to advise a suspect of their right to legal counsel is a breach of their rights, but it is not specifically classified as representation.
C. Allows the suspect to have a support person in the interview:
Allowing a support person is proper procedure and does not involve any form of representation or inducement.
Legal Context
The Evidence Act 2006 and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 emphasize that statements must be given voluntarily and without coercion or improper inducements. Representation undermines these principles.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Sections on admissibility and voluntariness of statements.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Rights of suspects during interviews.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for ethical interviewing practices.
In Summary:
Representation involves making promises or inducements, such as promising a favour in return for a requested action, making Option B correct.
When can you enter a place without warrant to search for evidential material under s83?
A. When you have RGTB that entry cannot be delayed because evidential material will be CADD.
B. When you have arrested a person and you have RGTB evidential material will be CADD.
C. When you have RGTS that the offender and evidential material can be found in the place.
B. When you have arrested a person and you have RGTB evidential material will be CADD.
Question 77
Being on the notification register (VNR) means the victim will be notified:
A. By the agency where the offender is held of any information concerning changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape, or death.
B. By Police of any changes to the defendant’s or offender’s circumstances (e.g., court appearance) and custody conditions.
C. By the agency where the offender is being held of any changes to the offender’s circumstances and custody conditions.
Answer: A. By the agency where the offender is held of any information concerning changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape, or death.
Reasoning
Purpose of the Victim Notification Register (VNR)
The Victim Notification Register (VNR) exists to ensure victims of certain crimes are kept informed about significant changes in the status of the offender.
Notifications are provided by the agency managing the offender, typically the Department of Corrections or the Parole Board.
What Notifications Include
Victims on the register are informed about:
Bail conditions.
Release dates or early release (parole).
Escape from custody.
Death of the offender.
Why Option A is Correct
The agency responsible for the offender (e.g., prison authorities or probation services) is tasked with notifying victims about changes that directly impact the offender’s custodial or supervisory status.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. By Police of any changes to the defendant’s or offender’s circumstances (e.g., court appearance) and custody conditions:
While Police may notify victims about case progress or court appearances, they are not responsible for ongoing updates once the offender is in custody or under supervision.
C. By the agency where the offender is being held of any changes to the offender’s circumstances and custody conditions:
This option is too vague and does not specify the types of notifications (e.g., bail, release, parole, escape, death) covered by the VNR.
Legal and Procedural Basis
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 governs the VNR, ensuring victims are kept informed in line with their rights.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Provisions for the Victim Notification Register.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on victim support and notification procedures.
In Summary:
Being on the VNR ensures the victim is notified by the agency where the offender is held about changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape, or death, making Option A correct.
On speaking with a youth apprehended at the scene of an attempted robbery, you note he has very poor English. On requesting his name and address and beginning to caution him, you note he does not seem to understand you. In the circumstances, what action is most appropriate?
A. Take him to the station and get an interpreter to give him the rights caution.
B. Give him the rights caution with reasonable diligence to gain his understanding.
C. Arrest him because his lack of communication can be regarded as a refusal to comply.
Answer: B. Give him the rights caution with reasonable diligence to gain his understanding.
Reasoning
Legal Obligation to Ensure Understanding
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23, mandates that individuals must be informed of their rights (e.g., the right to silence, the right to consult a lawyer) in a manner they can understand.
Police have an obligation to use reasonable diligence to ensure that the suspect comprehends the caution, even if language barriers exist.
Why Option B is Correct
Reasonable diligence may include:
Simplifying the language used.
Using gestures, visual aids, or other methods to aid communication.
If these attempts fail, arranging for an interpreter.
Proceeding with the caution in this way ensures compliance with legal standards and preserves the admissibility of any statements made.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Take him to the station and get an interpreter to give him the rights caution:
While involving an interpreter may eventually be necessary, the caution must be attempted at the scene with reasonable efforts to ensure understanding before any further actions, such as taking the youth to the station.
C. Arrest him because his lack of communication can be regarded as a refusal to comply:
A language barrier is not equivalent to refusal. Arresting the youth without ensuring he understands the caution would violate his rights and could render any evidence inadmissible.
Best Practices for Youth with Language Barriers
Ensure sensitivity to the youth’s limited English proficiency and provide adequate support, including interpreters if needed, while taking reasonable steps to explain their rights in the moment.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Section 23 – Rights during arrest or detention.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on cautions and handling suspects with language barriers.
In Summary:
The most appropriate action is to give the rights caution with reasonable diligence to gain the youth’s understanding, making Option B correct.
Question 79
You have arrested an adult male and want to interview him further. Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. You can interview him at length to gather any evidence with which to progress the charge against him.
B. You can interview him while being mindful of the need to proceed to court as soon as possible.
C. You can interview him for a short time only as he must be fairly and reasonably treated while in custody.
Answer: B. You can interview him while being mindful of the need to proceed to court as soon as possible.
Reasoning
Balancing Investigation and Prompt Judicial Process
Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, an arrested person has the right to be brought before a court as soon as possible.
While police may conduct interviews to gather evidence, this must be balanced with the obligation to ensure there are no undue delays in the judicial process.
Why Option B is Correct
Interviewing the arrested male while being mindful of the need to proceed to court promptly ensures that the investigation is thorough but does not unnecessarily delay their first appearance.
This approach aligns with legal obligations to respect the suspect’s rights while allowing for reasonable investigative procedures.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. You can interview him at length to gather any evidence with which to progress the charge against him:
Prolonged interviews without regard to the need for a timely court appearance could breach legal standards for reasonable and fair treatment.
C. You can interview him for a short time only as he must be fairly and reasonably treated while in custody:
While fair treatment is essential, this statement imposes an overly restrictive limit on the interview process. Police can interview the suspect as long as it is reasonable, without unnecessarily delaying court proceedings.
Legal Context and Best Practices
Interviews must be conducted fairly, with respect for the suspect’s rights, and within reasonable timeframes that do not compromise the judicial process.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Section 23 – Rights of persons arrested or detained.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: Requirements for bringing an arrested person before the court promptly.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on conducting interviews and managing custody timeframes.
In Summary:
You can interview the arrested individual while ensuring you proceed to court promptly and avoid unnecessary delays, making Option B correct.
Question 80
Which of the following actions is one way of preventing post-incident cross-contamination of a victim of a serious assault?
A. Transporting the victim and offender in the same vehicle.
B. Taking photos of the victim as soon as possible.
C. Ensuring different officers interview the victim and suspect.
Answer: C. Ensuring different officers interview the victim and suspect.
Reasoning
What is Cross-Contamination?
Cross-contamination refers to the unintentional transfer of information, evidence, or materials between individuals involved in a case, which can compromise the integrity of the investigation.
Preventing cross-contamination is critical to ensure reliable evidence and avoid challenges during prosecution.
Why Option C is Correct
Having different officers interview the victim and the suspect minimizes the risk of bias, contamination of evidence, or inadvertent influence on statements.
This approach ensures that the victim’s and suspect’s accounts are independent and untainted, maintaining the integrity of the investigation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Transporting the victim and offender in the same vehicle:
This action would increase the risk of contamination and could compromise the investigation by exposing the victim and offender to each other.
B. Taking photos of the victim as soon as possible:
While documenting the victim’s condition is important, it does not specifically prevent cross-contamination. This action is more about preserving evidence of injuries rather than avoiding contamination.
Best Practices in Serious Assault Investigations
Maintain strict separation between victims and suspects.
Assign different officers to handle interviews and processing for each individual.
Avoid direct or indirect contact between the victim and the suspect during the investigation.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for preventing cross-contamination during investigations.
Best Practices in Forensic Investigations: Emphasis on maintaining the integrity of victim and suspect accounts.
In Summary:
To prevent post-incident cross-contamination, it is essential to ensure different officers interview the victim and suspect, making Option C correct.
Question 81
When planning an interview with a special consideration witness (vulnerable witness), the investigator should:
A. Prepare to use conversation management to maximise the witness account.
B. Consult a supervisor to make decisions about the interview.
C. Conduct the interview promptly to avoid memory loss.
Answer: B. Consult a supervisor to make decisions about the interview.
Reasoning
Definition of a Special Consideration Witness
A special consideration (vulnerable) witness is someone who, due to age, mental capacity, psychological state, or other factors, may require additional support during the investigative process.
Ensuring their testimony is collected ethically and effectively is critical.
Why Option B is Correct
Consulting a supervisor ensures that the investigator considers all relevant legal and procedural guidelines for interviewing vulnerable witnesses.
Supervisors can advise on:
Appropriate techniques to minimize stress for the witness.
The involvement of specialists, such as interpreters or support persons.
Adherence to protocols for preserving the integrity of the interview.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Prepare to use conversation management to maximise the witness account:
Conversation management is more suited for interviewing suspects or uncooperative witnesses. Vulnerable witnesses often require a supportive, less structured approach.
C. Conduct the interview promptly to avoid memory loss:
While timeliness is important, it must not compromise the preparation required for an effective and sensitive interview. A rushed interview may cause additional stress to the witness or result in incomplete or unreliable testimony.
Best Practices for Interviewing Vulnerable Witnesses
Plan the interview carefully, considering the witness’s specific needs.
Use techniques that ensure the witness feels safe and understood.
Maintain compliance with relevant legal standards, such as the Evidence Act 2006, which governs the admissibility of evidence from vulnerable individuals.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Guidelines for interviewing vulnerable witnesses.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for handling special consideration witnesses.
Best Practices in Witness Management: Importance of preparation and consultation.
In Summary:
Consulting a supervisor helps ensure that the interview is planned and conducted in a way that supports the vulnerable witness and adheres to legal standards, making Option B correct.
Question 82
Billy strikes Mike over the head with a hammer, then runs to his car with the hammer and drives off. A short time later, you locate Billy driving the car and stop the car under s121 to search Billy and the car for the hammer. As you attempt to speak to him, Billy leaps out of the car and sprints off. Can you search the car for the hammer?
A. Yes, because you saw Billy run away from the car and you have RGTS the hammer is still in the car.
B. No, because with Billy running away you have no RGTB that the hammer will be CADD.
C. No, because Billy is no longer in or on the vehicle, so therefore power to search it does not apply.
Answer: A. Yes, because you saw Billy run away from the car and you have RGTS the hammer is still in the car.
Reasoning
Section 121 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 121 provides police the authority to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have Reasonable Grounds to Suspect (RGTS) that:
The vehicle contains evidential material relating to an offence.
The search is necessary to secure that evidential material.
Application to the Scenario
Billy was seen fleeing the car after using the hammer as a weapon.
Given the proximity of events and circumstances, you have RGTS that the hammer, an evidential item critical to the offence, is still in the car.
Why Option A is Correct
Fleeing the car does not negate the RGTS that the hammer remains inside.
Section 121 allows you to search the vehicle in this scenario to prevent potential loss or contamination of evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. No, because with Billy running away you have no RGTB that the hammer will be CADD:
The search under Section 121 relies on RGTS, not RGTB (Reasonable Grounds to Believe), and is justified by the immediate need to secure evidential material.
C. No, because Billy is no longer in or on the vehicle, so therefore power to search it does not apply:
Section 121 applies to the vehicle regardless of whether the suspect remains in or near it, as long as there are RGTS that the vehicle contains evidential material.
Best Practices in Evidence Preservation
Conduct the search in a manner that preserves the integrity of the hammer as evidence.
Document the search thoroughly to ensure compliance with legal requirements.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 121 – Warrantless search of vehicles.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for vehicle searches under warrantless powers.
In Summary:
You may search the car under Section 121 because Billy’s actions and the circumstances provide RGTS that the hammer remains in the vehicle. This makes Option A correct.
A good charging decision is made when the charges chosen adequately reflect the nature and extent of the criminal conduct and…
A. The prosecution is provided with sufficient admissible evidence.
B. The court is provided with an appropriate basis for sentence.
C. The defence is provided with the total evidence at disclosure.
Answer: B. The court is provided with an appropriate basis for sentence.
Reasoning
Purpose of Charging Decisions
A good charging decision ensures that:
The charges accurately reflect the criminal conduct.
They provide a solid legal framework for prosecution.
The charges result in an appropriate basis for sentencing, reflecting the gravity of the offence.
Why Option B is Correct
The primary goal of a charging decision is to ensure that the charges align with the severity of the offence and allow the court to impose a just and appropriate sentence.
This approach reflects the dual objectives of accountability for the offender and justice for the victim and society.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The prosecution is provided with sufficient admissible evidence:
While sufficient admissible evidence is critical for prosecution, it pertains to evidential sufficiency rather than the decision on charges.
C. The defence is provided with the total evidence at disclosure:
Disclosure is a procedural requirement, not a factor in the charging decision itself.
Best Practices in Charging Decisions
Apply the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines, including the Evidential Test and the Public Interest Test, to ensure charges are appropriate and justifiable.
Sources
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (NZ): Framework for making sound charging decisions.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on selecting charges to reflect criminal conduct and sentencing considerations.
In Summary:
A good charging decision reflects the nature of the offence and provides the court with a suitable basis for sentencing, making Option B correct.
The I car is first to the scene of a serious crash incident where two people in one car are injured and trapped. The constables’ first duty is to:
A. Establish a pathway into and out of the scene.
B. Ensure the crash scene is as safe as possible.
C. Assess the injured people and give first aid.
Answer: B. Ensure the crash scene is as safe as possible.
Reasoning
Prioritizing Scene Safety
The first duty of attending officers at any incident, including a serious crash, is to ensure the safety of the scene for all involved, including the injured, other responders, and bystanders.
An unsafe scene could lead to further injuries or complications, such as secondary collisions, fire, or harm to responders.
Why Option B is Correct
Ensuring the crash scene is safe involves:
Managing traffic to prevent additional accidents.
Identifying and mitigating hazards (e.g., fuel leaks, unstable vehicles).
Securing the area to allow emergency responders to work safely.
This step is foundational to effective incident management.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Establish a pathway into and out of the scene:
While important, establishing access pathways is secondary to ensuring the scene is safe. Pathways cannot be safely created until hazards are managed.
C. Assess the injured people and give first aid:
Providing aid is critical, but it must follow scene safety. Entering an unsafe scene to render aid could put responders at risk and exacerbate the situation.
Legal and Procedural Context
The New Zealand Police Manual emphasizes the importance of scene safety as the first priority when responding to incidents.
Police must coordinate with other emergency services to manage hazards before addressing other responsibilities.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Scene management procedures for serious incidents.
Best Practices in Emergency Response: Emphasis on ensuring safety as the initial priority.
In Summary:
The constables’ first duty is to ensure the crash scene is as safe as possible, making Option B correct.
Question 85
In relation to Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961, the difference between subsections (1) and (2) relates to:
A. The recklessness of the suspect in relation to the injuries caused.
B. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the suspect.
C. The intent of the suspect when causing the injuries.
Answer: C. The intent of the suspect when causing the injuries.
Reasoning
Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961
Section 188(1): Covers wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This subsection requires specific intent to cause serious injury or grievous bodily harm.
Section 188(2): Covers wounding with intent to injure or reckless disregard for the safety of others. This subsection applies to less serious intent or recklessness regarding the harm caused.
Key Difference Between Subsections (1) and (2)
The primary distinction lies in the level of intent:
Subsection (1): The suspect must have intended to cause grievous bodily harm (serious, long-term injury).
Subsection (2): The suspect may have intended to injure or acted with reckless disregard, which does not require the same level of intent as subsection (1).
Why Option C is Correct
The distinction between subsections (1) and (2) is based on the intent of the suspect when causing harm, not the recklessness, seriousness of injuries, or other factors.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The recklessness of the suspect in relation to the injuries caused:
Recklessness is relevant only to subsection (2), but it is not the main difference between the two subsections.
B. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the suspect:
Both subsections can involve serious injuries; the key difference is the level of intent behind the injuries.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 188 – Wounding with intent.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on intent and recklessness in offences involving harm.
In Summary:
The difference between subsections (1) and (2) of Section 188 lies in the intent of the suspect when causing the injuries, making Option C correct.
Question 86
Joe and Steve break into a vehicle parked up a residential driveway. They rip the GPS system from the dashboard and take a mountain bike from the boot of the vehicle. As they run down the driveway, they are confronted by the owner, who attempts to stop them getting away. Steve punches the homeowner in the face, causing him to fall to the ground, and Joe and Steve run away. What is the most appropriate assault offence?
A. Aggravated assault (Section 192 Crimes Act 1961).
B. Common assault (Section 9 Summary Offences Act 1981).
C. Injuring with intent (Section 189 Crimes Act 1961).
Answer: A. Aggravated assault (Section 192 Crimes Act 1961).
Reasoning
Understanding Aggravated Assault (Section 192 Crimes Act 1961)
Aggravated assault occurs when an assault is committed with additional aggravating factors, such as:
The intent to commit another offence (e.g., theft or burglary).
Resisting lawful apprehension.
In this case:
Steve’s assault on the homeowner was directly connected to the theft and served to aid their escape, qualifying as an aggravated assault.
Why Option A is Correct
Steve’s punch was used to facilitate their getaway after committing a burglary.
This establishes the connection between the assault and the theft, making the offence an aggravated assault under Section 192.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Common assault (Section 9 Summary Offences Act 1981):
Common assault refers to minor assaults without aggravating factors. In this scenario, the assault was part of an attempt to escape after a crime, making it aggravated.
C. Injuring with intent (Section 189 Crimes Act 1961):
While Steve caused harm to the homeowner, there is no indication of specific intent to injure beyond facilitating their escape, which makes aggravated assault the more appropriate charge.
Legal Context
The link between the assault and the burglary elevates the severity of the offence. Aggravated assault reflects the combination of theft and violence used in the commission or aftermath of a crime.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 192 – Aggravated assault.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for classifying assault offences.
In Summary:
The assault on the homeowner was committed to facilitate escape after the theft, making aggravated assault under Section 192 the most appropriate charge. This makes Option A correct.
John Smith is a well-known receiver of stolen property. You apply for a search warrant to search his residential address. There are no extenuating circumstances that will prevent your execution of the warrant without delay. What is the normal period the warrant will be valid for?
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 30 days.
B. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days.
C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 21 days.
Answer: C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 21 days.
Reasoning
Validity Period of Search Warrants
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a search warrant remains valid for a period specified by the issuing officer, but this period must not exceed 21 days from the date of issue.
Why Option C is Correct
The law explicitly states that the validity of a search warrant is capped at 21 days unless there are specific provisions or extensions granted, which is not indicated in this scenario.
In this case, as there are no extenuating circumstances to delay execution, the warrant’s validity is within the standard 21-day limit.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 30 days:
This exceeds the maximum timeframe allowed under the Search and Surveillance Act.
B. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days:
While a warrant can be issued for a shorter period (e.g., 14 days), the maximum timeframe is 21 days, making this option incomplete.
Practical Implications
Warrants must be executed within the specified timeframe. Failure to do so may render the search invalid and the evidence inadmissible.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 103 – Validity period of search warrants.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on search warrant issuance and execution.
In Summary:
A search warrant is valid for a period specified by the issuing officer, not exceeding 21 days, making Option C correct.
Question 88
Can a person charged with Male assaults Female (Section 194(b) Crimes Act 1961), a category 3 offence, elect a jury trial?
A. No.
B. Yes.
C. It is at the prosecutor’s discretion.
Answer: B. Yes.
Reasoning
Understanding Category 3 Offences
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a category 3 offence is one that:
Is punishable by a maximum penalty of two years or more imprisonment.
Allows the defendant to elect a jury trial, unless the charge is to be heard in the High Court (which is rare for such offences).
Male assaults Female (Section 194(b), Crimes Act 1961) is classified as a category 3 offence with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
Why Option B is Correct
Since Male assaults Female falls under category 3, the defendant has the right to elect a jury trial.
This right is not subject to the prosecutor’s discretion or other restrictions unless specified by law.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. No:
This is incorrect because category 3 offences explicitly allow defendants to elect a jury trial.
C. It is at the prosecutor’s discretion:
The decision to elect a jury trial rests solely with the defendant, not the prosecutor.
Legal Context
The right to elect a jury trial for category 3 offences reflects the principle of fairness and the defendant’s right to a trial by their peers in more serious cases.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Provisions regarding category 3 offences and jury trial elections.
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 194(b) – Male assaults Female.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on category 3 offences and trial procedures.
In Summary:
A person charged with Male assaults Female, a category 3 offence, has the right to elect a jury trial, making Option B correct.
Question 89
In relation to opposing bail for a person charged with a Section 29 offence, Police must:
A. Tell the victim that Police will oppose bail because the suspect should remain in custody.
B. Ascertain the victim’s views and agree on acceptable conditions for the suspect’s bail.
C. Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail.
Answer: C. Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail.
Reasoning
Section 29 Offences and Victim Rights
Section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 applies to serious offences, such as sexual or violent crimes, where the victim has the right to provide their views on bail.
The Police have a responsibility to inform the court of the victim’s concerns or views regarding bail conditions, as these may influence the court’s decision.
Why Option C is Correct
Ensuring that the court is aware of the victim’s views is a key obligation under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.
Police are required to take reasonable steps to:
Consult with the victim about their concerns.
Present these views to the court, especially if they pertain to the victim’s safety or the risk posed by the accused.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Tell the victim that Police will oppose bail because the suspect should remain in custody:
This is incorrect because the decision to oppose bail must be based on legal grounds, not solely on a promise to the victim. The victim’s views are considered but do not solely dictate the Police’s position.
B. Ascertain the victim’s views and agree on acceptable conditions for the suspect’s bail:
While consulting the victim is required, Police cannot agree with the victim on bail conditions, as these are determined by the court.
Legal and Practical Context
The court’s decision on bail considers various factors, including:
Risk to public safety.
Likelihood of reoffending or interference with witnesses.
The victim’s safety and views.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Section 29 – Victims’ views on bail.
Bail Act 2000 (NZ): Guidelines for opposing bail.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for consulting victims and presenting their views to the court.
In Summary:
Police must make all reasonable efforts to ensure the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail, making Option C correct.
Question 90
The meaning of the term ‘arbitrary detention’ as explained in the case R v Goodwin (1993) is:
A. When an officer tells a person in no uncertain words or conduct that they are not free to go.
B. When words or conduct of an officer cause a person to believe that he or she is not free to go.
C. When words or conduct of an officer cause a reasonable person to believe that they are not free to go.
Answer: C. When words or conduct of an officer cause a reasonable person to believe that they are not free to go.
Reasoning
Definition of Arbitrary Detention
Arbitrary detention occurs when a person is unlawfully or unjustifiably deprived of their liberty, contrary to Section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which guarantees the right not to be arbitrarily detained.
R v Goodwin (1993)
In this case, the court clarified that arbitrary detention includes situations where words or conduct of an officer cause a reasonable person to believe they are not free to leave.
The focus is on whether a reasonable person, given the circumstances, would interpret the officer’s actions as restricting their freedom of movement.
Why Option C is Correct
The explanation in R v Goodwin emphasized the perspective of a reasonable person in assessing whether the officer’s actions or words amount to arbitrary detention.
It goes beyond the subjective belief of the detained individual to consider what a typical person would understand in the same situation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. When an officer tells a person in no uncertain words or conduct that they are not free to go:
This implies a more explicit and overt communication from the officer, which is not always required to establish arbitrary detention.
B. When words or conduct of an officer cause a person to believe that he or she is not free to go:
This focuses on the subjective belief of the individual, which is insufficient for establishing arbitrary detention. The standard is based on the perspective of a reasonable person.
Legal Implications
Police must be cautious about their words and actions to avoid creating the impression of detention unless it is lawful and justified. Arbitrary detention can render subsequent evidence inadmissible.
Sources
R v Goodwin (1993): Case law defining arbitrary detention.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Section 22 – Right not to be arbitrarily detained.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on lawful detention and avoiding arbitrary actions.
In Summary:
Arbitrary detention occurs when words or conduct of an officer cause a reasonable person to believe they are not free to go, making Option C correct.
Steve and Keith are walking down the road together. Steve is wearing an All Whites football jersey. Henry wants the football jersey, so he walks up to Keith, punches him in the face, and yells at him to tell Steve to give up his jersey or he will punch him again. Steve, fearing that Keith might be hurt, takes off his jersey and gives it to Henry. What offence has Henry committed?
A. Theft, as the violence was used on Keith but the property was taken from Steve.
B. Robbery, as Henry has used violence and stolen property.
C. Aggravated robbery, as Henry has used violence on more than one person and stolen property.
Answer: B. Robbery, as Henry has used violence and stolen property.
Reasoning
Definition of Robbery Under the Crimes Act 1961
Section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines robbery as theft accompanied by:
Violence or the threat of violence to any person.
The violence or threats must be used to obtain property or prevent resistance to its taking.
Application to the Scenario
In this case:
Violence was used (Henry punched Keith).
Threats of violence were made (Henry threatened to punch Keith again).
Property (the jersey) was taken from Steve as a result of Henry’s actions.
These elements satisfy the definition of robbery.
Why Option B is Correct
Robbery is the correct charge because Henry used violence and threats to coerce Steve into giving up his jersey.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Theft, as the violence was used on Keith but the property was taken from Steve:
This is incorrect because theft does not involve violence or threats. The use of violence elevates the offence to robbery.
C. Aggravated robbery, as Henry has used violence on more than one person and stolen property:
This is incorrect because aggravated robbery involves additional factors, such as the use of a weapon or being part of a group of offenders. There is no evidence of these factors in this scenario.
Legal Context
The offence of robbery is designed to address situations where violence or threats are used to obtain property, ensuring that the severity of such actions is reflected in the charge.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 234 – Robbery.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for categorizing robbery and aggravated robbery offences.
In Summary:
Henry committed robbery by using violence and threats to obtain the jersey from Steve, making Option B correct.
Question 92
A search is a part of most crime scene examinations. Adopting a search pattern assists to:
A. Use staff efficiently to maximise the material collection.
B. Examine the scene in a thorough and controlled manner.
C. Prevent destroying or contaminating any possible evidence.
Answer: B. Examine the scene in a thorough and controlled manner.
Reasoning
Purpose of a Search Pattern
A search pattern is a systematic approach used during a crime scene examination to ensure all areas are properly covered and potential evidence is identified and collected without omissions or oversight.
Why Option B is Correct
Using a search pattern ensures the scene is examined thoroughly and in a controlled manner.
Patterns such as grid, spiral, or zone methods allow for a methodical and organized examination, minimizing the risk of missing critical evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Use staff efficiently to maximise the material collection:
While efficient use of staff is important, it is not the primary purpose of adopting a search pattern. Thoroughness and control take precedence.
C. Prevent destroying or contaminating any possible evidence:
Avoiding contamination is critical, but this is achieved through scene management protocols (e.g., wearing protective gear), not directly by the search pattern.
Best Practices in Crime Scene Searches
Choose the search pattern based on the size and nature of the scene.
Document the search process to ensure transparency and accountability.
Train staff in search techniques to maintain control and precision.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Best practices for crime scene examination and evidence collection.
Forensic Science Guidelines: Emphasis on systematic approaches for evidence searches.
In Summary:
A search pattern is designed to examine the scene in a thorough and controlled manner, making Option B correct.
Question 93
If your file has been sent back because you have been tasked with completing remedial work before case management discussions, what is the latest time that the file needs to be with the PPS office?
A. 1 week after you are tasked with the work.
B. Five working days before the case management discussion.
C. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed.
Answer: B. Five working days before the case management discussion.
Reasoning
Case Management Discussion and File Submission
In preparation for a Case Management Discussion (CMD), files requiring remedial work must be resubmitted to the Prosecution Service (PPS) within a specific timeframe.
Submitting the file five working days before the CMD ensures there is sufficient time for review, adjustments, and preparation.
Why Option B is Correct
The New Zealand Police Manual specifies that remedial files should be completed and returned to the PPS at least five working days prior to the CMD.
This allows the prosecution adequate time to finalize the Case Management Memorandum (CMM) and comply with legal and procedural timelines.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. 1 week after you are tasked with the work:
This timeframe is irrelevant to the CMD schedule. The critical deadline is tied to the CMD, not when the remedial work was assigned.
C. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed:
Submitting the file on the same day as the CMM filing leaves no time for review or adjustments, which could jeopardize the prosecution’s preparation.
Legal and Practical Implications
Delays in submitting remedial work could compromise the prosecution’s ability to meet court deadlines and provide proper disclosure, affecting case outcomes.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Requirements for case management discussions.
New Zealand Police Manual: File submission and case preparation guidelines.
In Summary:
The file must be resubmitted to the PPS five working days before the case management discussion, making Option B correct.
Question 94
The hot zone in a serious crime scene is best described as:
A. A zone where forensic analysis of exhibits takes place.
B. That part of the scene requiring examination and evidence collection.
C. A zone where scene guards record movements of staff to and from the scene.
Reasoning
Definition of the Hot Zone
The hot zone is the critical area within a crime scene where the offence occurred and where the most significant evidence is likely to be found.
This zone is typically the focal point for forensic examination and evidence collection.
Why Option B is Correct
The hot zone is where the most thorough examination takes place, including the collection of physical evidence such as biological material, fingerprints, and weaponry.
It is treated with the highest level of caution to preserve evidence integrity.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. A zone where forensic analysis of exhibits takes place:
Forensic analysis of exhibits usually occurs off-site (e.g., in a lab) rather than at the crime scene itself.
C. A zone where scene guards record movements of staff to and from the scene:
While scene guards control access to the hot zone, the recording of movements happens at the entry/exit point, not specifically in the hot zone.
Best Practices in Managing the Hot Zone
Access to the hot zone should be strictly limited to authorized personnel to prevent contamination.
Proper documentation and handling of evidence within this area are crucial to maintaining the integrity of the investigation.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for crime scene management.
Forensic Science Protocols: Importance of defining and securing critical evidence zones.
In Summary:
The hot zone is the part of the scene requiring examination and evidence collection, making Option B correct.
Question 95
You search a person for Cannabis under Section 21 of the S&S Act 2012. What statutory requirements (if any) do you have to fulfil after the search?
A. None, as you did not find anything.
B. Submit a Police 101 form to officially record the search.
C. Submit a notification to the Commissioner within three days.
Answer: C. Submit a notification to the Commissioner within three days.
Reasoning
Section 21 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 21 allows for the search of a person without a warrant under specific circumstances, such as when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person possesses illegal drugs (e.g., cannabis).
Post-Search Statutory Requirements
Regardless of the outcome of the search (whether something is found or not), the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 requires that a notification be submitted to the Commissioner of Police within three days.
This notification ensures accountability and compliance with legal procedures for warrantless searches.
Why Option C is Correct
Submitting a notification to the Commissioner within three days is a mandatory requirement after conducting a warrantless search under Section 21.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. None, as you did not find anything:
The notification requirement applies even if the search yields no results. Failure to notify would be a breach of procedural obligations.
B. Submit a Police 101 form to officially record the search:
While internal documentation like a Police 101 form may be used, it does not replace the statutory requirement to notify the Commissioner.
Accountability and Transparency
The notification ensures that all warrantless searches are documented and reviewed to prevent misuse of search powers.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 21 – Search of persons without warrant and related reporting obligations.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for warrantless searches and reporting requirements.
In Summary:
You are required to submit a notification to the Commissioner within three days after conducting a search under Section 21, making Option C correct.
Question 96
A salesman notices a man acting suspiciously at a computer display, and a short time later he discovers a laptop is missing. Police are called, and they promptly view the CCTV record of the carpark, which shows the man, who is carrying a laptop, getting into a blue car, QSY432. Comms alerts all cars, and a short time later you stop the vehicle under Section 121, but as you approach, the driver runs off. Can you proceed to search the vehicle for the missing laptop?
A. Yes, because you have RGTB the evidential material will be CADD.
B. Yes, because you have RGTB the missing laptop is in the vehicle.
C. No, because you must first arrest the driver before you can search.
Answer: B. Yes, because you have RGTB the missing laptop is in the vehicle.
Reasoning
Section 121 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 121 permits a warrantless search of a vehicle if police have Reasonable Grounds to Believe (RGTB) that the vehicle contains evidential material related to an offence.
The key criterion is the belief that the evidential material is present and that the search is necessary to locate or secure it.
Application to the Scenario
In this case:
The CCTV evidence and the observed actions of the suspect (getting into the vehicle with the laptop) provide strong RGTB that the laptop is inside the vehicle.
The driver fleeing the vehicle does not negate the belief that the laptop is in the car.
Why Option B is Correct
RGTB exists that the missing laptop, an evidential material, is inside the vehicle.
Under Section 121, this is sufficient to justify a warrantless search of the car.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Yes, because you have RGTB the evidential material will be CADD:
While urgency is relevant in some cases, this scenario does not rely on evidence being CADD (Concealed, Altered, Damaged, or Destroyed). The RGTB focuses on the presence of the laptop.
C. No, because you must first arrest the driver before you can search:
Section 121 does not require an arrest to justify a warrantless search. The search is based on the belief that the vehicle contains evidential material.
Legal and Procedural Context
The warrantless search powers under Section 121 ensure police can act swiftly to secure evidence when there is RGTB that it is located within a vehicle.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 121 – Warrantless search of vehicles.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for warrantless searches under Section 121.
In Summary:
You can search the vehicle because you have RGTB that the missing laptop is in the vehicle, making Option B correct.
Risk assessment is essential in the Search Warrant process. When should risk assessment occur?
A. Before the SW application is completed and before SW reporting.
B. Before the SW application is completed and prior to execution.
C. Before the SW is executed on this occasion and any other occasion.
Answer: B. Before the SW application is completed and prior to execution.
Reasoning
Importance of Risk Assessment in the Search Warrant Process
Risk assessment ensures the safety of all parties involved, including police officers, suspects, and the public.
It also helps to mitigate operational risks, such as evidence contamination, suspect flight, or harm to individuals.
Why Option B is Correct
Conducting a risk assessment before the SW application is completed ensures that the application addresses potential risks, such as suspect behavior or hazardous conditions at the search location.
Reassessing risks prior to execution allows the search team to adapt to any changes in circumstances and refine their approach.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Before the SW application is completed and before SW reporting:
While risk assessment is necessary during the application process, it must also occur prior to execution to account for real-time risks. This option omits a critical stage of the process.
C. Before the SW is executed on this occasion and any other occasion:
This option emphasizes risk assessment only at the execution stage, overlooking its importance during the application process.
Best Practices in Risk Assessment
Include risk mitigation strategies in the SW application.
Conduct briefings with the search team before execution to ensure everyone is aware of potential hazards and their roles.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Guidelines for search warrant processes.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for risk assessment in search warrant applications and execution.
In Summary:
Risk assessment must occur before the search warrant application is completed and prior to execution, making Option B correct.
Question 98
Are pre-trial admissibility hearings available before both Judge-alone and jury trials?
A. Pre-trial hearings are only for jury trials.
B. Yes.
C. No.
C. No
Question 99
If no Police Bail conditions are imposed, the date of the defendant’s first appearance must be which of the following?
A. No more than 10 working days from the date bail was granted.
B. No more than 14 days from the date bail was granted.
C. No more than 7 consecutive days from the date bail was granted.
B. No more than 14 days from the date bail was granted.
Question 100
Section 110 allows you to use reasonable force for the purposes of carrying out a search and seizure in respect of:
A. Any person hindering your search.
B. Property and any person hindering your search.
C. Any property you can lawfully search.
Answer: B. Property and any person hindering your search.
Reasoning
Understanding Section 110 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 110 permits the use of reasonable force during the execution of lawful searches and seizures.
It applies to both:
Property that is subject to the search or seizure.
Persons who hinder or obstruct the lawful conduct of the search.
Why Option B is Correct
Section 110 explicitly allows the use of reasonable force to manage situations involving:
The lawful search or seizure of property.
Individuals who actively hinder or interfere with the search process.
This ensures officers can effectively enforce the law while adhering to the principle of reasonableness.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Any person hindering your search:
While Section 110 allows reasonable force against persons hindering a search, it also includes provisions for property, making this option incomplete.
C. Any property you can lawfully search:
This option ignores the aspect of managing individuals who may obstruct the search, which is explicitly covered by Section 110.
Reasonable Force in Practice
Any force used must be proportionate to the circumstances and necessary to carry out the search or seizure. Excessive or unreasonable force may result in legal challenges or inadmissible evidence.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 110 – Use of reasonable force during searches.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on the use of force during searches and seizures.
In Summary:
Section 110 allows the use of reasonable force for property and persons hindering a lawful search, making Option B correct.
Question 101
Roger has been charged with Aggravated Burglary, a category 3 offence. He is pleading not guilty and wants to elect a jury trial. When can he make an election?
A. At any time before the case management discussion.
B. At the same time he enters his not guilty plea.
C. He cannot elect a jury trial for a category 3 offence.
Answer: B. At the same time he enters his not guilty plea.
Reasoning
Understanding Jury Trial Elections for Category 3 Offences
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a defendant charged with a category 3 offence (e.g., aggravated burglary) has the right to elect a jury trial.
The election must be made at the time the defendant enters a not guilty plea. This ensures the court can appropriately schedule the case for a judge-alone or jury trial.
Why Option B is Correct
A jury trial election for a category 3 offence is explicitly tied to the point at which the defendant pleads not guilty. This allows for clear procedural alignment in the court process.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. At any time before the case management discussion:
This is incorrect because the election must be made at the time of the plea, not at any arbitrary point before the case management discussion.
C. He cannot elect a jury trial for a category 3 offence:
This is incorrect because a jury trial is an option for category 3 offences unless there are specific statutory exclusions (which do not apply to aggravated burglary).
Legal and Practical Context
The court process for category 3 offences ensures that defendants can exercise their right to a jury trial in a timely manner, avoiding unnecessary delays in proceedings.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Jury trial elections for category 3 offences.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for case management and trial type decisions.
In Summary:
Roger can elect a jury trial at the same time he enters his not guilty plea, making Option B correct.
Question 102
Which of the following behaviours demonstrated by a lawyer at a suspect interview would be deemed unacceptable?
A. Challenging the manner in which a question is posed to their client.
B. Giving their client competent legal advice in relation to their case.
C. Answering the interviewer’s questions on behalf of their client.
Question 103
The hot zone in a serious crime scene can be described as the part of the scene where scene examiners:
A. Reconstruct the scene and formulate a forensic strategy.
B. Conduct forensic analysis of items in the material collection.
C. Search for, uplift, and package items for exhibits and analysis.
Answer: C – Search for, uplift, and package items for exhibits and analysis.
Question 104
Brad goes up to Kevin and threatens him with “a hiding” if the sunglasses Kevin is wearing are not handed over to him immediately. Kevin refuses to comply, and Brad punches him in the head. The sunglasses break. Brad, no longer interested in the glasses, walks away empty-handed.
A. Attempted robbery.
B. Assault with intent to rob.
C. Robbery.
B. Assault with intent to rob.
Question 105
You locate a pile of wet documents at a scene and want to forward them to the document examiner. The correct procedure is:
A. Dry the pile of documents before sealing in an envelope and forward for examination.
B. Seal in an airtight container or bag and forward the wet documents to the examiner.
C. Carefully separate the pages for drying and then, when dry, place each page in a plastic sleeve before forwarding for examination.
Answer: B. Seal in an airtight container or bag and forward the wet documents to the examiner.
Reasoning
Preserving Wet Documents
Wet documents are extremely fragile and can be easily damaged if not handled properly. The correct preservation method ensures the document examiner receives them in their original condition, preventing further deterioration or distortion.
Why Option B is Correct
Sealing wet documents in an airtight container or bag maintains their current state and prevents further damage, such as:
Ink bleeding or smudging.
Contamination or fungal growth.
The examiner is equipped to handle wet documents and will use specialized methods to separate, dry, and examine them.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Dry the pile of documents before sealing in an envelope and forward for examination:
Drying the documents yourself can lead to irreparable damage, such as pages sticking together or warping, making the documents unsuitable for examination.
C. Carefully separate the pages for drying and then, when dry, place each page in a plastic sleeve before forwarding for examination:
Attempting to separate and dry pages can destroy fragile evidence. This step should only be performed by experts with the proper tools and training.
Best Practices for Handling Wet Documents
Avoid direct handling or attempts to separate pages.
Seal in an airtight container to prevent further damage.
Label the container and document the chain of custody.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Evidence handling procedures for fragile or wet documents.
Forensic Document Examination Guidelines: Proper handling and transportation of wet evidence.
In Summary:
The correct procedure is to seal wet documents in an airtight container or bag and forward them to the examiner, making Option B correct.
The specific chapter of the New Zealand Police Manual relevant to evidence handling, including procedures for handling fragile or wet documents, typically falls under the sections on Exhibit Management or Evidence Handling Procedures.
While I do not have direct access to the full manual, you can check these sections:
Exhibit Management and Handling Guidelines:
Covers proper methods for collecting, packaging, and preserving evidence to ensure it remains intact for forensic examination.
Scene Examination Protocols:
Details procedures for securing and processing crime scenes, including handling wet or fragile materials.
To access the exact chapter, you can consult the New Zealand Police Manual available through internal police systems or request specific guidance through your organization’s resources. If you’re looking for public resources or specific excerpts, the New Zealand Police website may have additional relevant publications.
Let me know if you’d like help finding publicly available resources!
Question 106
After charging a shoplifter with theft and lodging her in the cells, you receive information leading you to suspect her of further thefts. According to Chief Justice Practice Note Guideline 2, you should:
A. Reconvene the interview, caution her, and ask questions relating to both offences.
B. Reconvene the interview, question her further about all the stolen items.
C. Interview her again on video, caution again, and question her about the new allegations.
Answer: C. Interview her again on video, caution again, and question her about the new allegations.
Reasoning
Chief Justice Practice Note Guideline 2
This guideline outlines procedures for interviewing suspects to ensure compliance with legal and procedural standards, particularly regarding fairness and admissibility of evidence.
If new allegations arise, the suspect must be given the opportunity to respond to these allegations in a way that protects their rights.
Why Option C is Correct
A new interview must be conducted to address the additional allegations, and it must be:
Recorded on video for transparency and to meet evidentiary requirements.
Preceded by a fresh caution to ensure the suspect is aware of their rights concerning the new allegations.
This ensures procedural fairness and prevents claims of improper conduct or coercion.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Reconvene the interview, caution her, and ask questions relating to both offences:
Adding questions about the new allegations to the initial interview can complicate the admissibility of evidence and may appear unfair or improper.
B. Reconvene the interview, question her further about all the stolen items:
Failing to issue a new caution or conduct a video-recorded interview may breach procedural guidelines, making any evidence obtained inadmissible.
Legal and Practical Context
A fresh interview ensures that the suspect is informed of the new allegations and their rights in relation to them. It also aligns with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23), which safeguards the rights of detained persons.
Sources
Chief Justice Practice Note Guideline 2: Procedures for suspect interviews.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Section 23 – Rights of persons arrested or detained.
New Zealand Police Manual: Best practices for conducting interviews and addressing new allegations.
In Summary:
The correct procedure is to interview her again on video, caution again, and question her about the new allegations, making Option C correct.
Question 107
Shane visits his neighbour Brian, and an argument develops between the two over the red T-shirt that Brian is wearing. Shane hits Brian in the face with a hammer, causing Brian to permanently lose the sight in his eye. When interviewed, Shane states that he only meant to hurt Brian and did not intend to make him blind. Can Shane claim that he acted in self-defence?
A. No, the defence of self-defence is not able to be claimed under Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961.
B. Yes, Shane feared for his personal safety because of the argument, so his actions were in proportion with the predicament he was facing.
C. No, there was no force or imminent force from Brian to be resisted or prevented, and Shane’s response was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Answer: C. No, there was no force or imminent force from Brian to be resisted or prevented, and Shane’s response was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Reasoning
Self-Defence and Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961
The defence of self-defence is governed by Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961, which allows a person to use reasonable force in response to a perceived imminent threat.
For self-defence to be successful:
The person must have acted to protect themselves or another.
The force used must be proportional to the threat faced.
Why Option C is Correct
No Threat or Imminent Force:
There is no evidence in the scenario that Brian posed an imminent threat or used force against Shane. The argument over a T-shirt does not justify physical violence.
Unreasonable Use of Force:
Hitting Brian in the face with a hammer is an excessive and disproportionate response to the situation, particularly as there was no indication of danger or physical harm from Brian.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. No, the defence of self-defence is not able to be claimed under Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961:
This is incorrect because Section 188 deals with wounding with intent, not the availability of self-defence. Self-defence is considered under Section 48, which applies regardless of the offence.
B. Yes, Shane feared for his personal safety because of the argument, so his actions were in proportion with the predicament he was facing:
This is incorrect because there was no indication that Shane reasonably feared for his safety. An argument does not amount to a threat that justifies hitting someone with a hammer.
Legal Precedent and Proportionality
Courts evaluate self-defence claims based on the subjective belief of the defendant and whether their actions meet an objective standard of reasonableness.
In this case, Shane’s response fails the objective test of proportionality, as the use of a hammer is excessive in the absence of a threat.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 48 – Self-defence and defence of another.
Case Law: New Zealand decisions on self-defence, particularly regarding proportionality and the necessity of force.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for assessing claims of self-defence.
In Summary:
Shane’s actions do not qualify as self-defence because there was no imminent threat or force to justify his response. His use of a hammer was unreasonable in the circumstances, making Option C correct.
Question 108
When executing a SW for stolen goods in or on a place or vehicle, you must always comply with your s131 obligations to give notice except when:
A. The owner or occupier is not present at the place or vehicle to be searched.
B. The occupant clearly consents to you executing the SW and you do not seize any items.
C. Circumstances exist that make it too dangerous or might prejudice the investigation.
Answer: C. Circumstances exist that make it too dangerous or might prejudice the investigation.
Reasoning
Section 131 Obligations (Search and Surveillance Act 2012)
Section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 requires Police to provide notice to the person being searched or the owner/occupier of a place or vehicle. This includes:
Providing a copy of the search warrant.
Explaining the reasons for the search.
Exceptions to the obligation are limited to specific situations where giving notice would:
Compromise officer or public safety.
Prejudice the investigation (e.g., alerting suspects or enabling evidence destruction).
Why Option C is Correct
Section 131(4) of the Act explicitly states that notice may be delayed or withheld if there are reasonable grounds to believe that giving notice would:
Pose a danger to officers or others.
Prejudice the investigation, such as tipping off accomplices or enabling the destruction of evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The owner or occupier is not present at the place or vehicle to be searched:
This is incorrect because the absence of the owner/occupier does not remove the obligation to provide notice. Notice must still be left at the location or with the vehicle (e.g., by leaving a copy of the search warrant).
B. The occupant clearly consents to you executing the SW and you do not seize any items:
This is incorrect because even with consent, the obligation to provide notice under Section 131 remains unless a specific exception applies.
Practical Implications
Officers must document the reasons for delaying or withholding notice to ensure transparency and accountability.
Any failure to comply with Section 131 obligations without valid justification may render the search or evidence inadmissible in court.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 131 – Obligations to give notice when executing a search warrant.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for executing search warrants and complying with statutory obligations.
In Summary:
You may withhold notice under Section 131 if circumstances exist that make it too dangerous or might prejudice the investigation, making Option C correct.
Question 109
‘Chain of evidence’ refers to:
A. The order in which exhibits are presented by the prosecution.
B. The forensic material collected to support the prosecution case.
C. The official record of exhibit collection, security, and movement.
Answer: C. The official record of exhibit collection, security, and movement.
Reasoning
Definition of the Chain of Evidence
The chain of evidence (or chain of custody) refers to the process of maintaining and documenting the handling of exhibits or evidence from the time they are collected until they are presented in court.
This ensures the evidence remains authentic, reliable, and uncontaminated, maintaining its admissibility in court.
Why Option C is Correct
The chain of evidence includes:
The collection of exhibits.
Documentation of who handled the evidence.
Secure storage and transportation.
Presentation in court.
Accurate record-keeping is critical to show that the evidence has not been tampered with or compromised at any point in the process.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The order in which exhibits are presented by the prosecution:
This refers to the sequencing of evidence during trial proceedings, not the chain of custody.
B. The forensic material collected to support the prosecution case:
While the chain of evidence applies to forensic material, it is not limited to it. The term specifically refers to the official record of the handling and movement of all exhibits.
Importance of the Chain of Evidence
Any break or gap in the chain can cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, potentially rendering it inadmissible in court.
Following strict procedures ensures transparency and accountability in the handling of evidence.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for managing and documenting evidence.
Forensic Science Guidelines: Best practices for maintaining the chain of custody.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Admissibility of evidence and chain of custody requirements.
In Summary:
The chain of evidence refers to the official record of exhibit collection, security, and movement, making Option C correct.
Question 110
When should an investigator visually record a witness interview?
A. Whenever an interviewing suite and required resources are available.
B. When the interview is needed for completeness and accuracy of evidence.
C. Whenever the witness is identified as a special consideration witness.
Answer: B. When the interview is needed for completeness and accuracy of evidence.
Reasoning
Purpose of Visually Recording Witness Interviews
Visual recordings (e.g., video interviews) are used to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and integrity of the evidence provided by witnesses.
This method preserves the witness’s account in its original form, reducing the risk of misinterpretation and allowing for better evaluation of demeanor and credibility.
Why Option B is Correct
Visual recording is appropriate when it is necessary to accurately document the evidence, especially for:
Witnesses providing critical information.
Interviews where the content may later be scrutinized in court.
This ensures the interview aligns with best practices and evidentiary standards.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Whenever an interviewing suite and required resources are available:
While resources may make recording convenient, the decision to visually record should be based on the importance and nature of the evidence, not merely the availability of facilities.
C. Whenever the witness is identified as a special consideration witness:
While special consideration witnesses (e.g., vulnerable witnesses) often require visual recording, not all situations involving these witnesses necessitate it. The decision should depend on the specific circumstances and legal requirements.
Legal and Procedural Context
Under the Evidence Act 2006 and New Zealand Police guidelines, visual recording is encouraged in situations where the accuracy of evidence is critical, such as in major investigations or cases involving serious offences.
For special consideration witnesses, visual recording is particularly valuable but is not a blanket requirement.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Admissibility and methods of recording witness evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Best practices for conducting and recording interviews.
Forensic Interviewing Guidelines: Use of visual recordings to maintain evidential accuracy.
In Summary:
An investigator should visually record a witness interview when it is needed for the completeness and accuracy of evidence, making Option B correct.
Question 111
As part of the SW application process, you must check that your NIA target is valid. You need to do this because details of any SW applications made on your target:
A. In the last 3 months will be attached to your application.
B. In that location will be attached to your application.
C. In the last 6 months will be attached to your application.
Answer: A. In the last 3 months will be attached to your application.
Reasoning
NIA Target Validation
As part of the Search Warrant (SW) application process, investigators are required to confirm the validity of the NIA (National Intelligence Application) target to ensure accuracy in the application.
This step ensures that the search warrant application includes details of any prior SW applications made on the target within a specified timeframe.
Why Option A is Correct
According to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and New Zealand Police procedures, any search warrant applications made on the target in the last 3 months must be disclosed and attached to the current application.
This provides transparency and prevents potential abuses of the search warrant process by ensuring prior applications are considered.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. In that location will be attached to your application:
The focus is on the target, not necessarily the location. Prior SW applications are linked to the individual or entity being targeted, not exclusively the physical location.
C. In the last 6 months will be attached to your application:
The timeframe for prior search warrant applications is 3 months, not 6 months.
Legal and Procedural Context
The 3-month disclosure rule ensures that the issuing officer is aware of any prior related searches, reducing the risk of unnecessary or repetitive warrants being issued.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Requirements for SW applications and prior application disclosure.
New Zealand Police Manual: NIA target validation and search warrant application procedures.
In Summary:
As part of the SW application process, you must check that your NIA target is valid because details of any SW applications made on your target in the last 3 months will be attached to your application, making Option A correct.
Question 112
When you are satisfied on reasonable grounds that an arrest of a youth (15 years) without a warrant is necessary in the circumstances, which section of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 overrides any other enactment in making an arrest?
A. Section 235.
B. Section 214.
C. Section 221.
Answer: B. Section 214.
Reasoning
Section 214 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989
Section 214 governs the arrest of children and young persons without a warrant and specifies strict conditions under which such an arrest may be made.
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the arrest of youth is treated as a last resort and is carried out only when necessary.
Criteria for Arrest Under Section 214
Arrest without a warrant can only be made if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to:
Ensure the child or young person appears in court.
Prevent further offending.
Prevent loss or destruction of evidence or interference with witnesses.
Why Option B is Correct
Section 214 explicitly overrides other enactments regarding the arrest of youth, ensuring that these principles are upheld across all relevant legal contexts.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Section 235:
Section 235 relates to taking children or young persons into custody in certain situations (e.g., care and protection issues) but does not govern arrests without a warrant for criminal offences.
C. Section 221:
Section 221 deals with youth-related processes, such as the appointment of lay advocates, but does not address the specific conditions for arrest without a warrant.
Legal and Practical Context
The strict conditions under Section 214 reflect New Zealand’s focus on minimizing unnecessary intervention in the lives of children and young persons while balancing the needs of justice.
Sources
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (NZ): Section 214 – Arrest of children and young persons without a warrant.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for arresting youth and ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
In Summary:
When arresting a 15-year-old without a warrant, Section 214 of the Act overrides other enactments, making Option B correct.
Question 113
The O/C initial action party could decide to immediately uplift an item from a scene of a serious crime when the item:
A. Cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate.
B. Is illegal and can be confiscated immediately without a warrant.
C. Will distress the victim’s family should they see it.
Answer: A. Cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate.
Reasoning
Preservation of Evidence
In serious crime scenes, preserving evidence is a key priority. However, if an item is at risk of deterioration or destruction due to exposure to environmental factors, it may be immediately uplifted to safeguard its evidentiary value.
Why Option A is Correct
Items that cannot be protected from the elements (e.g., rain, wind, or extreme heat) and are likely to deteriorate must be secured as soon as possible.
This is essential to ensure the evidence remains intact and admissible in court.
Immediate action must be documented, and the chain of custody maintained.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Is illegal and can be confiscated immediately without a warrant:
While illegal items (e.g., drugs, weapons) can be seized, their removal must still follow standard crime scene procedures unless they are at immediate risk of being lost or destroyed. The legality of an item alone does not justify immediate removal from a crime scene.
C. Will distress the victim’s family should they see it:
While it is important to consider the emotional impact on the victim’s family, this is not a valid reason to uplift an item immediately. Emotional distress does not override the need to properly document and handle evidence.
Best Practices for Uplifting Evidence
Any immediate removal of an item must:
Be justified (e.g., risk of deterioration).
Be properly documented in the crime scene log.
Follow all chain-of-custody requirements.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Crime scene management and evidence handling protocols.
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Provisions for evidence preservation.
Forensic Science Guidelines: Standards for securing and documenting evidence.
In Summary:
The O/C initial action party can immediately uplift an item if it cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate, making Option A correct.
Question 114
Your completed SW application must show clear connections between:
A. Any suspects, any offence, and evidential material for those offences.
B. The offence, the target address, and evidential material sought there.
C. The offence, any suspects, and any evidential material they may hold.
Answer: B. The offence, the target address, and evidential material sought there.
Reasoning
Requirements for a Search Warrant Application
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 requires a search warrant (SW) application to provide clear and specific connections between:
The offence being investigated.
The target address or location to be searched.
The evidential material believed to be located there.
These connections ensure that the search warrant is precise and based on reasonable grounds.
Why Option B is Correct
To justify the issuance of a search warrant, the application must establish:
What offence is under investigation.
Where the evidence is believed to be located (the specific address or vehicle).
What material is sought (e.g., stolen property, weapons, drugs).
This specificity ensures the warrant is lawful, minimizes intrusion, and protects individuals’ rights.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Any suspects, any offence, and evidential material for those offences:
This is incorrect because the focus of the search warrant application is on the specific offence, specific address, and specific evidence. A generic connection to “any suspects” or “any offence” is too broad.
C. The offence, any suspects, and any evidential material they may hold:
While suspects are often part of the investigation, the search warrant application must focus on the target address and the evidence believed to be there. It does not primarily link suspects to “any evidential material.”
Legal and Procedural Context
The specificity required in search warrant applications ensures compliance with legal standards and prevents challenges in court regarding the warrant’s validity.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Requirements for search warrant applications.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on completing search warrant applications.
In Summary:
A completed search warrant application must show clear connections between the offence, the target address, and evidential material sought there, making Option B correct.
Question 115
The S&S Act 2012 requires you to identify yourself and announce your intentions before you:
A. Enter a place to search it in response to an emergency.
B. Enter a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it.
C. Secure a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it.
Answer: B. Enter a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it.
Reasoning
Obligations Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 establishes specific requirements for law enforcement officers conducting searches.
Section 131 requires officers to identify themselves and announce their intention to search before entering a place, vehicle, or other location, unless an exception applies (e.g., if announcing would pose a danger or prejudice the investigation).
Why Option B is Correct
Officers must identify themselves and state their intentions before entering a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it.
This ensures transparency and accountability, protects individuals’ rights, and minimizes the risk of disputes over the legality of the search.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Enter a place to search it in response to an emergency:
In emergencies (e.g., under Section 14 or Section 15), officers may be exempt from announcing their intentions if it would endanger safety or lead to the loss of evidence. This is not a blanket requirement in emergencies.
C. Secure a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it:
Securing a location (e.g., guarding the scene) does not necessarily require an announcement, as no search has commenced at this stage.
Legal and Practical Context
Exceptions to the announcement requirement exist but are narrowly defined, such as:
If it would compromise officer safety.
If it would prejudice the investigation (e.g., giving suspects time to destroy evidence).
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 131 – Announcement and identification requirements before searches.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for conducting lawful searches.
In Summary:
Under the S&S Act 2012, you are required to identify yourself and announce your intentions before entering a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it, making Option B correct.
Question 116
In relation to section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961, the difference between subsections (1) and (2) relates to:
A. The intent of the suspect when causing the injuries.
B. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the suspect.
C. The recklessness of the suspect in relation to the injuries caused.
Answer: A. The intent of the suspect when causing the injuries.
Reasoning
Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961
Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961 addresses the offence of wounding with intent.
The difference between subsections (1) and (2) lies in the intent of the offender at the time of causing the injuries.
Subsection 188(1)
This subsection refers to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
It requires a specific intent to cause serious injury, making it a more serious offence.
Subsection 188(2)
This subsection refers to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure, which does not require the same level of intent as subsection (1).
The intent to cause injury (less than grievous bodily harm) distinguishes this from subsection (1).
Why Option A is Correct
The key difference between the two subsections is the level of intent:
Subsection (1) involves intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Subsection (2) involves intent to injure, which is a lower threshold.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the suspect:
While the seriousness of the injuries may be considered in sentencing, the difference between subsections (1) and (2) is not based on the extent of injuries but rather the offender’s intent.
C. The recklessness of the suspect in relation to the injuries caused:
Recklessness is not the defining element in Section 188 offences. These offences are based on intent, not recklessness.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 188 – Wounding with intent.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for charging decisions under Section 188.
In Summary:
The difference between subsections (1) and (2) of Section 188 relates to the intent of the suspect when causing the injuries, making Option A correct.
Question 117
You are dispatched to a P1 event where a man who is on work release from a psychiatric institution has just threatened his neighbours with a small handgun. On arrival, you find the man sitting in his car in his driveway. Can you search without warrant for the gun?
A. Yes, you can search the man, his car, anything in his possession, and his property.
B. Yes, you can search the man and his car and the neighbour’s property.
C. No, you cannot search the man or his vehicle as they are on private property.
nswer: A. Yes, you can search the man, his car, anything in his possession, and his property.
Reasoning
Legal Framework for Warrantless Searches
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ), Section 18 provides police officers with the power to conduct a warrantless search for firearms or dangerous weapons in situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is in possession of a firearm or weapon in breach of the Arms Act 1983.
Why Option A is Correct
The man threatened his neighbours with a handgun, creating an immediate risk to public safety.
Section 18(2) of the Search and Surveillance Act allows warrantless searches of:
The person suspected of possessing the firearm.
Any vehicle or property associated with the person where the firearm may reasonably be located.
This includes the man, his car, and any items in his possession or property, as the presence of a firearm constitutes a public safety concern.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Yes, you can search the man and his car and the neighbour’s property:
The warrantless search powers extend to the suspect’s property, but not to unrelated locations such as the neighbour’s property, unless there is specific evidence connecting the firearm to that location.
C. No, you cannot search the man or his vehicle as they are on private property:
This is incorrect because warrantless search powers under Section 18 apply regardless of whether the person is on private property, provided there are reasonable grounds for the search.
Key Considerations
The warrantless search must be proportionate and limited to what is necessary to locate the firearm or weapon.
The officer must document the grounds for conducting the search and comply with notification requirements after the search.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 18 – Warrantless searches associated with arms.
Arms Act 1983 (NZ): Offences related to unlawful possession of firearms.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for conducting warrantless searches for firearms.
In Summary:
You can search the man, his car, anything in his possession, and his property under warrantless search powers provided by Section 18, making Option A correct.
Question 118
A youth (16 years) who is to be interviewed about stolen property insists on his uncle as his nominated person. On contacting the uncle, you find that he is willing to attend an interview but, due to work commitments, is not available until the next day. You should advise the youth in this situation that:
A. You are obligated to inform his parents of the matter, so a parent may as well be his nominated person.
B. The interview will be delayed until his uncle can attend, and the youth will be released conditionally.
C. His nominated person is not available within the required timeframes and request he nominates another.
Answer: C. His nominated person is not available within the required timeframes and request he nominates another.
Reasoning
Legal Requirements for Nominated Persons
Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (formerly the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act), a youth who is to be interviewed by Police must have a nominated person present to ensure their rights are upheld.
A nominated person may be a parent, guardian, or another adult who can support the youth and ensure fairness during the interview.
Why Option C is Correct
If the nominated person (in this case, the uncle) is not available within a reasonable timeframe, the youth must be given the opportunity to nominate someone else.
The interview cannot be unreasonably delayed, especially if the youth is in custody, as this would infringe upon their rights and contravene procedural fairness.
By requesting the youth to nominate another person, you maintain compliance with the law while ensuring the interview proceeds within required timeframes.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. You are obligated to inform his parents of the matter, so a parent may as well be his nominated person:
This is incorrect because the youth has the right to choose their own nominated person. Informing the parents does not override the youth’s choice, unless the chosen person is unavailable or unsuitable.
B. The interview will be delayed until his uncle can attend, and the youth will be released conditionally:
This is incorrect because delaying the interview indefinitely to wait for the uncle could breach the timely process requirement and unnecessarily hinder the investigation.
Practical Application
If the youth struggles to choose another suitable person, Police can assist in facilitating one, such as a Youth Aid Officer, while ensuring the youth understands their rights.
Sources
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (NZ): Provisions regarding youth interviews and nominated persons.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for interviewing youth offenders and ensuring compliance with their rights.
In Summary:
You should inform the youth that their nominated person is not available within the required timeframes and request they nominate another person, making Option C correct.
Question 119
What must happen before a Judge can require a plea to be entered?
A. Initial disclosure has been delivered, and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
B. The defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
C. The defendant’s second appearance.
Answer: A. Initial disclosure has been delivered, and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
Reasoning
Requirement for Initial Disclosure
Before a judge can require a defendant to enter a plea, initial disclosure must be provided by the prosecution.
Initial disclosure includes key evidence and information that allows the defendant to understand the case against them and prepare a defense.
Legal Advice Opportunity
The defendant must also be given the opportunity to obtain legal advice to ensure that they can make an informed decision regarding their plea.
This is a fundamental part of procedural fairness and aligns with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which ensures the right to legal counsel.
Why Option A is Correct
Both conditions—initial disclosure and the opportunity for legal advice—are necessary before a judge can require a plea.
This ensures the defendant is not placed in a position of entering a plea without full knowledge of the case or without legal guidance.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. The defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice:
This is only one part of the requirement. Without initial disclosure, the defendant cannot fully understand the charges or evidence to make an informed plea.
C. The defendant’s second appearance:
The second appearance is not a requirement for entering a plea. The timing is contingent on the delivery of initial disclosure and the opportunity for legal advice.
Legal Framework
This requirement is outlined in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which ensures procedural fairness in plea proceedings.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Requirements for plea entry.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Right to legal advice and fair trial.
New Zealand Police Manual: Court and case management procedures.
In Summary:
A judge can require a plea to be entered only after initial disclosure has been delivered, and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice, making Option A correct.
Question 120
A 16-year-old male who has been arrested elects his mother as his nominated person. She asks about the charges her son may face. Is she entitled to an explanation?
A. No. As the nominated person, her role is to support her son at the interview so he understands the charges.
B. Yes. The enforcement officer should inform her of the charges, but only when a lawyer is present.
C. Yes. The enforcement officer should inform her of the nature of the charges as soon as possible.
Answer: C. Yes. The enforcement officer should inform her of the nature of the charges as soon as possible.
Reasoning
Role of the Nominated Person
Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, a nominated person plays a supportive role during the investigation and interview of a youth offender.
Their role includes ensuring that the young person understands the legal processes, their rights, and the charges they face.
Why Option C is Correct
It is appropriate and necessary to inform the nominated person of the nature of the charges so they can provide informed support and guidance to the youth.
This is consistent with principles of fairness and transparency in the justice process.
Informing the nominated person ensures they can assist the youth in understanding the seriousness of the charges and the implications of their decisions.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. No. As the nominated person, her role is to support her son at the interview so he understands the charges:
This is incorrect because the nominated person must be informed of the charges to effectively fulfill their role as a supporter.
B. Yes. The enforcement officer should inform her of the charges, but only when a lawyer is present:
This is incorrect because informing the nominated person of the charges is not conditional on the presence of a lawyer. The information can and should be provided independently.
Legal Framework and Best Practice
The youth justice system in New Zealand emphasizes involving a supportive adult in the process to ensure fairness and that the youth understands the charges.
Best practices encourage open communication with the nominated person, especially when the youth is under 18.
Sources
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (NZ): Provisions regarding youth offenders and the role of the nominated person.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for dealing with youth offenders and informing nominated persons.
In Summary:
The enforcement officer should inform the nominated person (in this case, the mother) of the nature of the charges as soon as possible, making Option C correct.
Question 121
The decontamination zone model is used at a scene of a major crime because:
A. The scene will contain both biological and physical evidence.
B. The scene requires a search plan that ensures close scrutiny.
C. The forensic evidence it contains is contaminated.
Answer: A. The scene will contain both biological and physical evidence.
Reasoning
Purpose of the Decontamination Zone Model
The decontamination zone model is implemented at crime scenes, especially major crime scenes, to prevent cross-contamination of evidence and to preserve its integrity.
This model is crucial because crime scenes often contain both biological evidence (e.g., blood, DNA, hair) and physical evidence (e.g., weapons, clothing, fingerprints).
Why Option A is Correct
Major crime scenes frequently have a mixture of biological and physical evidence that must be carefully handled and separated.
The decontamination zone helps ensure that:
Evidence remains uncontaminated.
Investigators and forensic teams follow strict protocols when entering and exiting the scene.
This is critical for maintaining the admissibility of evidence in court.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. The scene requires a search plan that ensures close scrutiny:
While a search plan is important, the decontamination zone model specifically addresses contamination risks, not the scrutiny of the search itself.
C. The forensic evidence it contains is contaminated:
This is incorrect because the decontamination zone model is designed to prevent contamination, not address contamination that has already occurred.
Key Practices in the Decontamination Zone Model
Establishing clean, buffer, and contaminated zones to control the flow of personnel and evidence.
Using designated entry and exit points to avoid cross-contamination.
Employing decontamination procedures (e.g., changing gloves and footwear) for individuals entering and exiting the scene.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on crime scene management and evidence preservation.
Forensic Science Guidelines: Best practices for managing biological and physical evidence at major crime scenes.
In Summary:
The decontamination zone model is used because major crime scenes often contain both biological and physical evidence, making Option A correct.
Question 122
Police are obliged to inform victims of:
A. The process for restorative justice and whom to contact.
B. How and when to complete a Victim Impact Statement.
C. Investigative progress and any impending charges or arrests.
Answer: C. Investigative progress and any impending charges or arrests.
Reasoning
Victims’ Rights Under New Zealand Law
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 outlines the obligations of Police and other agencies in informing and supporting victims of crime.
Police are required to ensure victims are kept informed about investigative progress, including updates on charges, arrests, and other significant developments in the case.
Why Option C is Correct
Victims have a right to be kept informed of:
The status of the investigation (e.g., whether charges are being considered or laid).
Any arrests made in connection with the crime.
Key events related to the prosecution, such as court appearances or bail hearings.
This aligns with the principle of transparency and ensures victims feel supported during the justice process.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The process for restorative justice and whom to contact:
While restorative justice may be discussed in certain cases, it is not a universal obligation for all victims and depends on the nature of the offence and the wishes of the victim.
B. How and when to complete a Victim Impact Statement:
While Police may assist victims with Victim Impact Statements (e.g., by explaining the process), the primary obligation under the Victims’ Rights Act is to provide updates on the investigation and prosecution progress.
Legal and Procedural Context
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 ensures victims are treated with respect, provided with relevant information, and consulted where appropriate.
Informing victims about investigative progress and charges is a critical component of these obligations.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Key provisions outlining victims’ rights and Police obligations.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for victim communication and support.
In Summary:
Police are obliged to inform victims about investigative progress and any impending charges or arrests, making Option C correct.
Question 123
George is running down a crowded street. He grabs the shoulder bag of a passing female. He twists her arm as she tries to hold on to her bag. The pain causes her to let go of the bag, and George takes off. The most appropriate offence in relation to the actions of George is:
A. Theft, as the violence used was minimal and would not constitute robbery.
B. Robbery, as the theft was accompanied by a sufficient level of violence.
C. Theft in relation to the stolen property and assault in relation to the violence.
Answer: B. Robbery, as the theft was accompanied by a sufficient level of violence.
Reasoning
Definition of Robbery (Section 234, Crimes Act 1961)
Robbery involves:
Theft, and
Violence or threats of violence used to commit the theft, to prevent resistance, or to retain stolen property.
The level of violence does not need to cause serious injury, but it must be more than trivial or incidental to the act of theft.
Why Option B is Correct
George’s act of twisting the woman’s arm constitutes violence used to overcome her resistance and facilitate the theft.
This satisfies the criteria for robbery because:
There was theft (taking the bag).
There was violence (twisting her arm to force her to let go).
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Theft, as the violence used was minimal and would not constitute robbery:
This is incorrect because even minimal violence used to overcome resistance elevates theft to robbery under Section 234 of the Crimes Act.
C. Theft in relation to the stolen property and assault in relation to the violence:
This is incorrect because the violence and theft are part of the same act. Separating them into distinct offences (theft and assault) would misrepresent the offence, which is legally classified as robbery.
Legal Precedent and Interpretation
Courts have consistently ruled that any violence used to facilitate theft—even if not severe—meets the threshold for robbery. The twisting of the victim’s arm causing pain clearly constitutes sufficient violence in this case.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 234 – Robbery.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for distinguishing robbery from theft and assault.
Case Law: Interpretations of robbery under Section 234, emphasizing the role of violence.
In Summary:
George’s actions constitute robbery because the theft was accompanied by sufficient violence to overcome the victim’s resistance, making Option B correct.
Question 124
You wish to install a 24-hour camera across the road from a suspected tinnie house to record the comings and goings at the front door. Which of the following do you need?
A. No warrant is needed as the camera is being installed on private property by consent of the owner of that property.
B. Search Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
C. Surveillance Device Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
Answer: C. Surveillance Device Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
Reasoning
Definition of Surveillance Device Warrant (SDW)
A Surveillance Device Warrant is required when law enforcement uses a device to monitor, observe, or record activities in circumstances where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ) explicitly regulates the use of surveillance devices to ensure that investigations respect individual privacy rights and are conducted lawfully.
Why Option C is Correct
The installation of a 24-hour camera to observe the comings and goings at a suspected tinnie house would likely record individuals who have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Even if the camera is placed on private property with the owner’s consent, its use to monitor activities at another private property requires legal authorization via a Surveillance Device Warrant.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. No warrant is needed as the camera is being installed on private property by consent of the owner of that property:
This is incorrect because the focus of surveillance is the suspected tinnie house, not the property where the camera is installed. The law requires an SDW when surveillance targets activities where privacy is expected, regardless of the camera’s location.
B. Search Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012:
A Search Warrant applies to searching premises, vehicles, or items for evidential material but does not authorize the use of surveillance devices for extended observation or recording.
Legal and Procedural Context
Surveillance activities must balance investigative needs with the right to privacy under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Misuse of surveillance devices without proper authorization can render the evidence inadmissible and may violate legal protections.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Provisions governing surveillance device warrants (Part 3).
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for obtaining SDWs and conducting surveillance.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Right to privacy and lawful investigation procedures.
In Summary:
To install a 24-hour camera for surveillance of a suspected tinnie house, you need a Surveillance Device Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, making Option C correct.
Question 125
Police are responsible for informing a victim of a section 29 sexual offence that:
A. To ensure their anonymity, their name will not be revealed in any documents to the court.
B. They have rights in legislation that protect their privacy throughout court proceedings and reporting.
C. Their court case could be arduous because intent is difficult to prove in any sexual offence.
Answer: B. They have rights in legislation that protect their privacy throughout court proceedings and reporting.
Reasoning
Victims’ Rights in Sexual Offences
Victims of sexual offences, especially those under section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, are afforded special protections to ensure their privacy and dignity are respected throughout the investigative and judicial process.
This includes protections under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and Evidence Act 2006, which restrict the publication of identifying information and allow for alternative ways of giving evidence.
Why Option B is Correct
Victims must be informed that their privacy is protected by legislation during court proceedings and public reporting.
This includes:
Prohibition on publishing identifying details (e.g., names, addresses).
The right to give evidence through alternative methods (e.g., video link or behind a screen).
The right to apply for name suppression in certain circumstances.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. To ensure their anonymity, their name will not be revealed in any documents to the court:
This is incorrect because victims’ names are used in court documents, but protections exist to prevent their details from being made public. Full anonymity in court documents is not guaranteed.
C. Their court case could be arduous because intent is difficult to prove in any sexual offence:
This is inappropriate and incorrect. Police are not responsible for commenting on the difficulty of proving intent or the potential challenges of a case. Their responsibility is to provide factual information about the victim’s rights and protections.
Legal and Procedural Context
Informing victims of their rights is a critical obligation under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.
This ensures victims are treated with respect and are aware of how their privacy and well-being will be safeguarded during legal proceedings.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Section 29 – Special protections for victims of sexual offences.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Privacy protections for victims during court processes.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Alternative methods for giving evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Victim care and communication procedures.
In Summary:
Police are responsible for informing victims of a section 29 sexual offence that they have rights in legislation that protect their privacy throughout court proceedings and reporting, making Option B correct.
Question 126
When taking digital images of a crime scene yourself, you must start an audit trail recording the details of the images in your notebook. What details must be recorded?
A. Date, file number range, and camera make and model.
B. Date, time, and file number range.
C. Date, time, and location.
C. Date, time, and location.
Question 127
Which of the following scenarios could affect the reliability of a suspect interview record? When the suspect being interviewed is:
A. Tired and clearly unwell but is not offered an interview break.
B. Sometimes confused when changing her version of events.
C. Informed of the circumstantial evidence already held by Police.
Answer: A. Tired and clearly unwell but is not offered an interview break.
Reasoning
Reliability of Suspect Interview Records
The reliability of a suspect interview record depends on ensuring the suspect is in a fit state to provide accurate and voluntary information.
Factors such as physical condition, mental clarity, and voluntariness significantly impact the admissibility and evidentiary value of the interview.
Why Option A is Correct
If the suspect is tired and unwell and is not offered a break, it raises concerns about the reliability of the interview.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and best practices outlined in the Police Manual require that suspects are treated fairly and provided with breaks when necessary.
Failure to do so may result in the interview being deemed involuntary or unreliable, leading to its exclusion as evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Sometimes confused when changing her version of events:
Confusion or changing accounts does not inherently affect the reliability of the interview record unless the confusion results from unfair treatment or coercion by Police. The suspect’s inconsistent statements may simply reflect their attempt to conceal the truth or memory issues.
C. Informed of the circumstantial evidence already held by Police:
Informing a suspect about evidence is part of a legitimate interrogation strategy and does not inherently affect the reliability of the record, as long as it is not done in a coercive or misleading manner.
Best Practices for Ensuring Reliability
Ensure the suspect is physically and mentally fit to be interviewed.
Offer breaks and access to medical attention if necessary.
Conduct the interview in compliance with the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning to avoid issues of unfairness or impropriety.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Right to fair treatment during detention.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Guidelines for proper interrogation practices.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for suspect interviews and maintaining reliability.
In Summary:
The scenario where a suspect is tired and clearly unwell but not offered an interview break could significantly affect the reliability of the interview record, making Option A correct.
Question 128
Who is responsible for ensuring a victim of a section 29 offence is given the POL 1065 and sufficient information and assistance to complete it?
A. Responsibility rests with Victim Support/Women’s Refuge who are trained to assist section 29 victims.
B. Responsibility rests with the O/C case who arrests and charges the offender with the section 29 offence.
C. Responsibility rests with Police Prosecutions staff who audit the file contents before court.
Answer: B. Responsibility rests with the O/C case who arrests and charges the offender with the section 29 offence.
Reasoning
Victims of Section 29 Offences
Section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 outlines specific protections and rights for victims of serious offences, including sexual offences and other crimes that cause significant harm.
The POL 1065 form is provided to assist victims in seeking entitlements, support, and protection under the Act.
Why Option B is Correct
The Officer in Charge (O/C) of the case is directly responsible for ensuring that victims are informed of their rights and given the necessary forms (e.g., POL 1065).
The O/C case:
Provides the form to the victim.
Explains its purpose and ensures the victim understands how to complete it.
Assists the victim if necessary or directs them to appropriate support services for further assistance.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Responsibility rests with Victim Support/Women’s Refuge who are trained to assist section 29 victims:
While these organizations may provide support to victims, the initial responsibility for issuing the POL 1065 and providing guidance rests with the Police, specifically the O/C case.
C. Responsibility rests with Police Prosecutions staff who audit the file contents before court:
Prosecution staff review files to ensure they are complete and accurate before court proceedings, but they are not responsible for ensuring victims receive the POL 1065 or assistance with it.
Key Legal and Procedural Framework
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and New Zealand Police Manual place responsibility on the O/C case to ensure victims are supported throughout the investigation and legal process.
This includes providing forms like the POL 1065 and any necessary explanations.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Rights and protections for victims of section 29 offences.
New Zealand Police Manual: Responsibilities of the O/C case regarding victim support and documentation.
Victim Support Guidelines: Role of support organizations in assisting victims post-referral.
In Summary:
The responsibility for ensuring a victim of a section 29 offence receives the POL 1065 and sufficient information to complete it rests with the O/C case, making Option B correct.
Question 129
Ensuring the admissibility of forensic evidence presented to the court requires understanding of which of the following groups of words:
A. Relevance, oppression, veracity, reliability.
B. Contaminate, relevance, integrity, security.
C. Persistence, contaminate, inference, secure.
C. Persistence, contaminate, inference, secure.
Question 130
The correct method to collect a dry blood sample at a crime scene is to:
A. Dab blood with a dry swab, then add sterile water to the swab.
B. Add sterile water to the blood, then gently rub with a dry swab.
C. Dampen swab with sterile water, then gently rub the blood.
Answer: C. Dampen swab with sterile water, then gently rub the blood.
Reasoning
Best Practices for Collecting Biological Evidence
Collecting a dry blood sample requires methods that preserve the DNA and ensure that the sample is not degraded or contaminated during collection.
Using a dampened swab with sterile water is the recommended method as it effectively lifts the dry blood while maintaining its integrity.
Why Option C is Correct
Dampen swab with sterile water, then gently rub the blood:
Moistening the swab with sterile water ensures the blood sample adheres to the swab while minimizing damage to the DNA.
This method avoids oversaturating the sample or leaving behind residues that could interfere with forensic analysis.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Dab blood with a dry swab, then add sterile water to the swab:
Adding sterile water after dabbing risks uneven collection of the sample and could damage the integrity of the blood on the swab.
B. Add sterile water to the blood, then gently rub with a dry swab:
Adding sterile water directly to the blood could dilute or disperse the sample, potentially contaminating the surrounding area and compromising the evidence.
Key Considerations for Evidence Collection
Always use sterile, uncontaminated tools for evidence collection.
Ensure the collected sample is stored appropriately (e.g., air-dried if possible before sealing in packaging).
Maintain a proper chain of custody to avoid questions about the sample’s admissibility in court.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for crime scene investigation and biological evidence collection.
Forensic Science Guidelines: Best practices for the collection, storage, and analysis of biological evidence.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Requirements for admissible evidence in court.
In Summary:
The correct method to collect a dry blood sample is to dampen the swab with sterile water, then gently rub the blood, making Option C correct.
Question 131
Tessa and Jean want Lisa’s MP3 player. Tessa is aware that Jean has a knife and is prepared to use it when they confront Lisa. Jean brandishes the knife and threatens to stab Lisa unless she gives her the MP3 player. Lisa is scared but doesn’t want to hand over her MP3 player, so gives Jean some money instead. Which of the following is correct in relation to the “being armed with an offensive weapon” ingredient of ‘aggravated robbery’?
A. Tessa and Jean are both liable for ‘aggravated robbery’ as it can be said that they are both armed with a knife.
B. Only Jean is liable for ‘aggravated robbery’ as she was the person armed with a knife and had control over it.
C. Jean is liable for ‘aggravated robbery’ and Tessa is a party to ‘aggravated robbery’ as she did not have possession of the knife.
Answer: A. Tessa and Jean are both liable for ‘aggravated robbery’ as it can be said that they are both armed with a knife.
Reasoning
Definition of Aggravated Robbery (Section 235, Crimes Act 1961)
Aggravated robbery involves committing robbery:
While being armed with an offensive weapon or instrument, or
Being in company with another person and using or threatening to use violence.
In this case, Jean is physically armed with a knife, but Tessa is complicit as part of the planned offence and had knowledge of Jean’s intent to use the weapon.
Why Option A is Correct
Tessa and Jean are both liable for aggravated robbery:
Tessa was aware of the knife and its intended use before the offence, making her equally culpable as a party to the crime under Section 66 of the Crimes Act 1961.
This section establishes that a person who aids, abets, or encourages an offence is equally liable as the principal offender.
Tessa’s knowledge of Jean’s possession of the knife and her role in the confrontation implicate her as being effectively “armed” through the joint enterprise.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Only Jean is liable for aggravated robbery as she was the person armed with a knife and had control over it:
This is incorrect because Tessa knowingly participated in the crime, aware of the weapon’s presence and its role in intimidating Lisa. Her involvement makes her equally liable.
C. Jean is liable for aggravated robbery and Tessa is a party to aggravated robbery as she did not have possession of the knife:
This is incorrect because possession or control of the weapon extends to both offenders when one knowingly participates in a crime involving an armed accomplice.
Legal Precedent
Case law supports the interpretation that all parties to an offence are liable if they have knowledge of and actively participate in a crime involving the use of a weapon.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 235 (Aggravated robbery) and Section 66 (Parties to offences).
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for robbery offences and party liability.
Relevant Case Law: Judicial decisions on party liability and armed offences.
In Summary:
Both Tessa and Jean are liable for aggravated robbery, as Tessa’s knowledge of the knife and her involvement in the offence make her equally culpable. This makes Option A correct.
Question 132
If a suspect’s right to “consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private” cannot be facilitated immediately by Police, what action is required first?
A. Advise the suspect of that fact and proceed to interview.
B. Advise the suspect of that fact and the reason for the delay.
C. Arrange for their lawyer to attend at a time suiting the circumstances.
Answer: B. Advise the suspect of that fact and the reason for the delay.
Reasoning
Right to Legal Representation (Section 23(1)(b), New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990)
Every person who is detained or arrested has the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private.
This is a fundamental right and must be respected by the Police unless there are exceptional circumstances preventing its immediate facilitation.
Why Option B is Correct
If this right cannot be immediately facilitated, the Police must:
Advise the suspect of the situation (i.e., the delay in accessing a lawyer).
Provide a reason for the delay to ensure transparency and fairness.
This step ensures the suspect understands why their right is temporarily not being met and helps mitigate any potential claims of impropriety.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Advise the suspect of that fact and proceed to interview:
This is incorrect because conducting an interview without fulfilling the suspect’s right to legal representation risks rendering the interview inadmissible in court.
C. Arrange for their lawyer to attend at a time suiting the circumstances:
While arranging for a lawyer to attend is part of facilitating this right, it is not the first step. The suspect must be informed of the delay and its reason immediately.
Legal and Procedural Requirements
Police must document any delays in facilitating this right and ensure the suspect is aware of their rights throughout the process.
Delaying access to a lawyer is permissible only in exceptional situations (e.g., immediate risk to public safety), and the Police must act to resolve the delay as quickly as possible.
Admissibility of Evidence
Failure to inform the suspect of the delay and its reason may result in any subsequent evidence (e.g., statements made during the interview) being deemed inadmissible under the Evidence Act 2006.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23(1)(b)): Rights of detained/arrested persons.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Admissibility of statements and procedural fairness.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for facilitating access to legal representation.
In Summary:
If a suspect’s right to consult a lawyer cannot be immediately facilitated, Police must advise the suspect of that fact and the reason for the delay, making Option B correct.
Question 133
What are the aims of case management discussions?
A. To determine what type and length of sentence the defendant will plead guilty to, and resolve any issues before trial.
B. To determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial.
C. To fill in the PPS file analysis form.
Answer: B. To determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial.
Reasoning
Purpose of Case Management Discussions (CMDs)
Case Management Discussions (CMDs) are designed to streamline the court process by:
Identifying whether the case will proceed to trial or be resolved beforehand.
Resolving procedural and evidentiary issues that may arise before trial.
Ensuring efficient use of court time and resources.
This is a key part of managing cases in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 framework.
Why Option B is Correct
CMDs focus on assessing whether the case will move forward to trial and addressing any outstanding issues, such as:
Evidential disputes.
Pre-trial applications (e.g., suppression orders, admissibility of evidence).
Ensuring disclosure obligations have been met.
These discussions aim to clarify the case’s trajectory, reduce delays, and encourage resolutions where possible.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. To determine what type and length of sentence the defendant will plead guilty to, and resolve any issues before trial:
This is incorrect because CMDs are not focused on sentencing discussions or plea bargaining. These aspects are handled at sentencing hearings or through specific negotiations.
C. To fill in the PPS file analysis form:
This is incorrect as completing administrative paperwork is not the primary aim of CMDs. While file management is part of the process, the focus is on trial readiness and resolving substantive issues.
Key Objectives of CMDs
Avoid unnecessary trials by encouraging guilty pleas when appropriate.
Ensure trials proceed efficiently by addressing pre-trial matters.
Promote fairness by ensuring all parties are prepared for the trial.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Framework for case management and pre-trial procedures.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on case management and pre-trial processes.
District Court Resources: Overview of case management discussions and their objectives.
In Summary:
The aim of Case Management Discussions is to determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial, making Option B correct.
Question 134
You are en route to the scene of an armed robbery where it is believed that an air rifle has been used. You locate a person you believe to be the offender a couple of blocks from the scene. Can you lawfully stop and search him under section 18 of the S&S Act 2012?
A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it.
B. Yes, but you should obtain his consent first.
C. No, suspicion is insufficient. You must have “reasonable ground to believe” before conducting a search.
Answer: A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it.
Reasoning
Section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 18 provides the authority for warrantless searches when Police have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is in possession of a firearm, explosive, or restricted weapon.
The threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect allows for action to be taken based on credible information or observations, even if not to the higher threshold of reasonable grounds to believe.
Why Option A is Correct
You can stop and search the person if you have reasonable grounds to suspect they possess the air rifle (or any other restricted weapon).
In this scenario:
The proximity of the person to the scene of the robbery.
A match with any description of the offender or other observable factors.
Information connecting the person to the incident.
These factors would collectively meet the threshold of reasonable suspicion under Section 18.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Yes, but you should obtain his consent first:
This is incorrect because under Section 18, consent is not required to conduct a warrantless search if the criteria for reasonable suspicion are met.
C. No, suspicion is insufficient. You must have “reasonable ground to believe” before conducting a search:
This is incorrect because Section 18 explicitly allows searches based on reasonable grounds to suspect, not the higher standard of “reasonable grounds to believe.”
Practical Application and Best Practices
While reasonable suspicion allows you to search, it’s critical to articulate the reasons for your suspicion clearly.
Any search conducted must comply with legal requirements and be proportionate to the situation.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 18 – Warrantless powers to search for weapons.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for warrantless searches under Section 18.
Case Law: Interpretation of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in relation to warrantless searches.
In Summary:
Under Section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you can lawfully stop and search a person if you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of the air rifle, making Option A correct.
Question 135
An appropriate support person for a special consideration adult witness should be present in the room during the interview when the interviewer:
A. Requires the support person to interpret.
B. Decides it is in their own interests.
C. Decides it is in the interests of the witness.
Answer: C. Decides it is in the interests of the witness.
Reasoning
Special Consideration Adult Witnesses
Special consideration witnesses, such as those with intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairments, are entitled to support during interviews to ensure their welfare and the reliability of their testimony.
The support person is present to assist the witness and ensure they feel comfortable and supported throughout the interview process.
Why Option C is Correct
The interviewer must determine if having a support person present is in the interests of the witness, as this ensures:
The witness can provide their account without feeling intimidated or overwhelmed.
The reliability of the interview is not compromised by undue stress or discomfort.
This decision aligns with the principle of prioritizing the well-being of the witness and upholding the integrity of the interview.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Requires the support person to interpret:
This is incorrect because a support person is not there to act as an interpreter. If interpretation is required, a qualified interpreter must be provided, which is a separate role.
B. Decides it is in their own interests:
This is incorrect because the interviewer’s interests should not dictate the presence of a support person. The focus must remain on the witness’s welfare and needs.
Legal and Procedural Framework
Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and relevant police guidelines, the decision to involve a support person must be made with the witness’s best interests in mind.
Ensuring the witness feels supported helps maintain procedural fairness and enhances the quality of the evidence obtained.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Protections and rights for vulnerable witnesses.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for interviewing special consideration witnesses.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Provisions for supporting vulnerable witnesses during testimony.
In Summary:
A support person for a special consideration adult witness should be present if the interviewer determines it is in the interests of the witness, making Option C correct.
Question 136
Johnny Smith is served with a summons to appear in Court in 2 months’ time. The Charging Document has not yet been filed. When must the Charging Document be filed?
A. Within 7 days of the issuing of the summons
B. Anytime up to and including the first appearance date on which the defendant is required by the summons to appear
C. As soon as reasonably practicable after the service of the summons
C. As soon as reasonably practicable after the service of the summons
Question 137
Susan lives with Karen. They have an argument over who is going to eat the last piece of chocolate cake resulting in Susan plunging a knife into Karen’s chest and lacerating Karen’s lung. In relation to section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961 the most appropriate description in relation to the puncture of Karen’s lung would be:
A. An injury
B. A maiming
C. Grievous bodily harm
Answer: C. Grievous bodily harm
Reasoning
Definition of Grievous Bodily Harm (Section 188, Crimes Act 1961)
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) refers to serious physical harm that may result in long-term damage, permanent disability, or is life-threatening.
A laceration to the lung caused by a knife puncture is a severe injury that risks significant complications, including respiratory distress and potential fatality, fitting the definition of GBH.
Why Option C is Correct
The laceration of Karen’s lung is a serious injury that constitutes GBH because:
It directly affects a vital organ.
It poses a significant threat to life and requires urgent medical intervention.
Under Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961, such harm meets the threshold for being described as “grievous bodily harm.”
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. An injury:
While technically correct, this term is too general and does not reflect the severity of the harm caused. The puncture of a lung is far beyond a standard injury.
B. A maiming:
Maiming typically refers to the permanent disfigurement or disablement of a body part. While the lung injury is severe, it does not automatically meet the definition of maiming unless it results in permanent loss of function.
Application to Section 188 (Wounding with Intent)
Under Section 188, GBH is used to determine the level of intent and seriousness of the offence (e.g., wounding with intent to cause GBH).
Susan’s act of stabbing Karen with a knife and causing lung laceration would likely be charged under Section 188(1) as wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 188 – Wounding with intent.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for assessing injuries and classifying harm.
Case Law: Judicial interpretations of grievous bodily harm under New Zealand law.
In Summary:
The puncture of Karen’s lung resulting from the stabbing is best described as grievous bodily harm due to its severity and life-threatening nature, making Option C correct.
Question 138
Pursuant to Section 19 S&S Act 2012, which of the following statutes authorises the search of persons during the execution of a search warrant?
A. Crimes Act 1961
B. Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
C. Summary Proceedings Act 1957
Answer: B. Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Reasoning
Search Powers Under Section 19, Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (S&S Act)
Section 19 of the S&S Act 2012 allows for the search of persons during the execution of a search warrant if the authorising statute explicitly permits such searches.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 provides statutory powers for searching persons for evidence related to drug offences during the execution of a warrant.
Why Option B is Correct
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 contains specific provisions authorising the search of individuals for drugs or evidence related to drug-related offences when a warrant is executed.
This aligns with the additional search powers outlined in the S&S Act for persons present at the place being searched.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Crimes Act 1961:
The Crimes Act outlines general criminal offences but does not provide explicit search powers related to persons during the execution of a warrant.
C. Summary Proceedings Act 1957:
This Act deals primarily with procedural matters in criminal cases, such as filing and prosecuting offences, and does not provide specific search powers.
Key Application
If a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act is executed, Police may search persons found at the location for evidence, as authorised by both the Misuse of Drugs Act and the S&S Act.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 19 – Search of persons during the execution of a search warrant.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (NZ): Provisions for searching persons for drug-related evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for conducting searches during warrant execution.
In Summary:
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is the statute that authorises the search of persons during the execution of a search warrant under Section 19 of the S&S Act 2012, making Option B correct.
Question 139
A salesman notices a man acting suspiciously at a computer display and a short time later discovers a laptop is missing. Police are called and they promptly view the CCTV record of the carpark which shows the man, who is carrying a laptop, getting into a blue car, QSY432. Comms alerts all cars and a short time later you stop the vehicle under s121 but, as you approach, the driver runs off. Can you proceed to search the vehicle for the missing laptop? (S & S Section 29)
A. Yes, because you have RGTB the evidential material will be CADD
B. Yes, because you have RGTB the missing laptop is in the vehicle
C. No, because you must first arrest the driver before you can search
B. Yes, because you have RGTB the missing laptop is in the vehicle
Question 140
An appropriate support person for a special consideration adult witness should be present in the room during an interview when the interviewer:
A. Decides it is in the interests of the witness
B. Decides it is in their own interests
C. Requires the support person to interpret
Answer: A. Decides it is in the interests of the witness
Reasoning
Special Consideration Witnesses
A special consideration adult witness may include individuals with intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairments, as well as those affected by the nature of the offence.
The purpose of having a support person is to ensure the witness feels comfortable and supported, allowing them to provide the most accurate and reliable evidence possible.
Why Option A is Correct
The decision to involve a support person must be made based on what is in the best interests of the witness to facilitate the interview process.
This ensures the witness has the necessary emotional and psychological support to effectively participate in the interview.
It prioritizes the rights and well-being of the witness, aligning with the principles of fairness and respect.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Decides it is in their own interests:
This is incorrect because the interviewer’s interests should not influence the presence of a support person. The focus must always be on the witness’s needs and interests.
C. Requires the support person to interpret:
This is incorrect because a support person is not an interpreter. If interpretation is required, a qualified interpreter must be provided separately. A support person’s role is to provide emotional or practical support to the witness, not interpretation.
Legal and Procedural Context
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and police procedures emphasize the importance of support for vulnerable witnesses to ensure their rights and welfare are respected during investigations.
Support persons play a critical role in minimizing the trauma of the interview process and enhancing the reliability of the evidence.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Rights and protections for vulnerable witnesses.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for interviewing special consideration witnesses.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Provisions for ensuring fair treatment of witnesses in legal processes.
In Summary:
A support person should be present during the interview of a special consideration adult witness if the interviewer determines it is in the interests of the witness, making Option A correct.
Question 141
Which words best describe the Appreciation technique?
A. A four-step process to identify problems and find appropriate solutions
B. A four-step process that is written down, not committed to memory
C. A four-step problem-solving process that informs decision-making
Answer: C. A four-step problem-solving process that informs decision-making
Reasoning
What is the Appreciation Technique?
The Appreciation technique is a structured method used in problem-solving and decision-making.
It involves breaking down complex situations into manageable steps to identify problems, analyze options, and inform decisions effectively.
It is commonly employed by law enforcement and other professional fields to ensure logical and well-reasoned actions.
Why Option C is Correct
The Appreciation technique is best described as a problem-solving process designed to:
Analyze a situation.
Identify critical problems.
Develop and evaluate potential solutions.
Inform decision-making to address the situation effectively.
The key outcome of the technique is informed decision-making, aligning it with Option C.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. A four-step process to identify problems and find appropriate solutions:
While this is partially accurate, it fails to emphasize the role of decision-making in the process, which is central to the Appreciation technique.
B. A four-step process that is written down, not committed to memory:
This focuses on how the process might be documented but does not accurately capture the essence or purpose of the technique as a decision-making tool.
Application in Policing
The Appreciation technique helps Police personnel systematically assess situations, especially during operational planning, investigations, or crisis management.
It ensures decisions are logical, evidence-based, and address the root causes of problems.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Decision-making frameworks and operational planning.
Problem-Solving Techniques in Policing: Application of structured approaches like the Appreciation technique.
In Summary:
The Appreciation technique is best described as a four-step problem-solving process that informs decision-making, making Option C correct.
Question 142
Your completed SW application must show clear connections between:
A. Any suspects, any offence, and evidential material for those offences
B. The offence, any suspects, and any evidential material they may hold
C. The offence, the target address, and evidential material sought there
Answer: C. The offence, the target address, and evidential material sought there
Reasoning
Requirements for Search Warrant (SW) Applications
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a search warrant application must provide clear and specific details that justify the search, including:
The offence being investigated.
The target address where the search will take place.
The specific evidential material that is being sought in connection with the offence.
Why Option C is Correct
The focus of a search warrant application is to demonstrate a clear link between:
The offence being investigated.
The location (target address) to be searched.
The evidential material expected to be found at that location.
This ensures that the search is proportionate, specific, and legally justified.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Any suspects, any offence, and evidential material for those offences:
This is incorrect because a warrant application is not about any offence or any suspect; it must focus on the specific offence, target address, and evidential material relevant to the application.
B. The offence, any suspects, and any evidential material they may hold:
This is incorrect because a search warrant application must specify the target address, not just suspects or material they might hold elsewhere.
Legal Context
The specificity required in search warrant applications ensures compliance with legal protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as outlined in Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Requirements for obtaining a search warrant.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for preparing and submitting search warrant applications.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
In Summary:
Your completed search warrant application must clearly connect the offence, the target address, and the evidential material sought, making Option C correct.
Question 143
Section 18 Warrantless searches associated with arms - gives you the power to do which one of the following:
A. Search persons or possessions (including vehicles) and places, seize and detain firearms, and detain firearms licenses
B. Search persons and places (excluding vehicles), enter places, seize and detain firearms, seize and detain firearms licenses
C. Search persons or possessions (including vehicles) and places, enter places or vehicles, seize and detain firearms, and seize and detain firearms licenses
Answer: C. Search persons or possessions (including vehicles) and places, enter places or vehicles, seize and detain firearms, and seize and detain firearms licenses
Reasoning
Section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Section 18 authorizes warrantless searches associated with firearms in specific circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that:
A person is in possession of a firearm, restricted weapon, or explosive; and
The search is necessary to prevent harm or address a risk to public safety.
Scope of Powers
Under Section 18, the Police are granted the power to:
Search persons or their possessions, including vehicles.
Enter places or vehicles to conduct the search.
Seize and detain firearms, restricted weapons, or explosives if found.
Seize and detain firearms licenses if required for safety or legal compliance.
Why Option C is Correct
Option C fully reflects the scope of powers provided under Section 18. It includes the ability to search persons, possessions, vehicles, and places, along with the authority to enter locations and seize/detain firearms and licenses.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Search persons or possessions (including vehicles) and places, seize and detain firearms, and detain firearms licenses:
This option omits the authority to enter vehicles or places, which is explicitly allowed under Section 18.
B. Search persons and places (excluding vehicles), enter places, seize and detain firearms, seize and detain firearms licenses:
This option incorrectly excludes vehicles from the search powers, which are clearly included in the legislation.
Practical Considerations
These powers are critical for situations involving firearms-related risks, where immediate action is necessary to prevent harm or ensure public safety.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 18 – Warrantless search powers relating to firearms and associated items.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for warrantless searches under Section 18.
New Zealand Firearms Regulations: Guidelines for handling firearms and licenses.
In Summary:
Section 18 authorizes Police to search persons, possessions, vehicles, and places, enter places or vehicles, and seize and detain firearms and licenses, making Option C correct.
Question 144
You stop a vehicle for the purpose of searching it. There are four occupants in the car. Your partner deals with the driver. The backseat passenger asks you why the car has been stopped. What obligations do you have to him?
A. You must identify yourself by name or QID, and state the Act under which the search is taking place and the reason for it, unless it is impracticable to do so in the circumstances, and produce evidence if not in uniform
B. None. You are only obliged to tell the driver of the vehicle the reason for the stop
C. You must identify yourself by name, tell him the reason for the search, state the Act and Section under which the search is taking place, and produce evidence if not in uniform
Answer: A. You must identify yourself by name or QID, and state the Act under which the search is taking place and the reason for it, unless it is impracticable to do so in the circumstances, and produce evidence if not in uniform.
Reasoning
Obligations Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (S&S Act)
The S&S Act 2012 outlines the legal obligations Police must meet when conducting warrantless searches or stops.
Section 131 of the Act specifies the procedural obligations when exercising search powers, including:
Identifying yourself (by name or QID).
Stating the Act under which the search is being conducted.
Explaining the reason for the search.
Producing evidence of identity if you are not in uniform (e.g., badge or ID).
These obligations apply to any person affected by the search, including passengers.
Why Option A is Correct
The backseat passenger is directly affected by the search and is therefore entitled to be informed about the search, the authority under which it is taking place, and your identity.
However, there is an exception where providing this information may be delayed if it is impracticable in the circumstances (e.g., safety concerns or immediate risk of harm).
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. None. You are only obliged to tell the driver of the vehicle the reason for the stop:
This is incorrect because the S&S Act requires Police to provide this information to all individuals directly affected by the search, including passengers.
C. You must identify yourself by name, tell him the reason for the search, state the Act and Section under which the search is taking place, and produce evidence if not in uniform:
This is incorrect because the law does not require specifying the Section of the Act, only the Act itself and the reason for the search.
Practical Application
Providing this information ensures compliance with procedural fairness and transparency, minimizing the potential for disputes or claims of unlawful search.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 131 – Obligations when exercising search powers.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on conducting searches and providing information.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
In Summary:
When conducting a search, you must identify yourself, state the Act and the reason for the search, and provide evidence if not in uniform, unless it is impracticable in the circumstances. This makes Option A correct.
Question 145
After charging an offender with burglary and placing him in the police cells, he later decides to tell you where he has hidden the property he stole during the burglary. According to the Chief Justice Practice Note Guidelines, you should:
A. Reconvene the interview to gain an account but refrain from asking him any questions
B. Reconvene the interview, caution him, gain his account, and question him further
C. Reconvene the interview and question him about the information he is now offering
Answer: B. Reconvene the interview, caution him, gain his account, and question him further
Reasoning
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning
The Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning provides clear guidance on handling situations where a charged individual offers additional information voluntarily.
Once a person has been charged, Police should only question them further if:
They are properly cautioned again.
The questioning relates to new information provided by the suspect or new evidence that has emerged.
Why Option B is Correct
In this situation:
The offender has already been charged and placed in custody.
His decision to offer information about the stolen property constitutes new information, so Police can reconvene the interview.
However, Police must first re-administer the caution to ensure he understands his rights before obtaining his account and questioning him further.
This process ensures compliance with legal requirements and safeguards the admissibility of the evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Reconvene the interview to gain an account but refrain from asking him any questions:
This is incorrect because simply gaining an account without questioning might fail to clarify critical details. Additionally, the lack of questioning could undermine the thoroughness of the investigation.
C. Reconvene the interview and question him about the information he is now offering:
This is incorrect because questioning must be preceded by a proper caution to ensure the suspect’s rights are protected.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Failing to caution the offender or improperly questioning them could lead to claims of procedural unfairness or result in the exclusion of evidence in court under the Evidence Act 2006.
Sources
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Guidelines for questioning suspects post-charge.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Provisions for admissibility of evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for conducting interviews and handling new information post-charge.
In Summary:
Police must reconvene the interview, re-administer the caution, and then proceed to gain the offender’s account and question him further. This ensures compliance with legal requirements and maintains the integrity of the investigation, making Option B correct.
Question 146
Which of the following statements is incorrect. A witness in a Free Recall (FR) interview:
A. Should begin their account following a TEDS-type question
B. Should be challenged following their first FR account
C. Can be asked to make a sketch plan or drawing
Answer: B. Should be challenged following their first FR account
Reasoning
Free Recall (FR) Interviews
A Free Recall interview is designed to allow the witness to provide their account of events without interruption, influence, or leading questions.
The goal is to obtain the most accurate and uncontaminated information possible before asking any clarifying or probing questions.
Why Option B is Incorrect
Witnesses should not be challenged immediately after their first free recall account.
Challenging at this stage can:
Lead to contamination or influence the witness’s memory.
Cause the witness to feel pressured or defensive, reducing the reliability of the information provided.
Challenges or clarifications, if necessary, should only occur after the free recall phase has been completed and other methods (e.g., probing questions) have been used.
Why the Other Options Are Correct
A. Should begin their account following a TEDS-type question:
TEDS questions (Tell, Explain, Describe, Show) are open-ended prompts designed to encourage the witness to provide detailed information in their own words. This approach aligns with best practices for free recall interviews.
C. Can be asked to make a sketch plan or drawing:
Witnesses can be asked to create a sketch or diagram to clarify spatial details or provide additional context, which can support their verbal account. This is an accepted practice during or after the free recall process.
Application in Policing
Free recall interviews are a crucial tool for gathering reliable evidence. Ensuring the witness is not interrupted or challenged prematurely helps maintain the integrity of their account.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for conducting free recall interviews.
Best Practices in Investigative Interviewing: Techniques for obtaining uncontaminated witness accounts.
Cognitive Interview Technique: Emphasizes free recall and non-leading questioning.
In Summary:
The incorrect statement is B, as witnesses should not be challenged immediately following their first free recall account. Instead, they should be encouraged to share their account fully and openly before any clarification or probing takes place.
Question 147
Sarah has been arrested. Her top layer of clothing is a pair of jeans and a T-shirt. You decide to do a rub-down search. Just before you begin Sarah tells you she is wearing no bra beneath her T-shirt. Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. You may search any items removed from Sarah separately
B. You may not require Sarah to remove, raise, lower, or open her outer clothing as she has no other clothing
C. You may require Sarah to remove, raise, lower, or open any of her outer clothing
Answer: B. You may not require Sarah to remove, raise, lower, or open her outer clothing as she has no other clothing
Reasoning
Definition of a Rub-Down Search
A rub-down search is a non-invasive search typically conducted over a person’s outer clothing to check for concealed items, such as weapons or contraband.
It does not involve requiring the person to remove, raise, lower, or open their outer clothing unless strictly necessary and subject to legal and procedural safeguards.
Key Principles from the Search and Surveillance Act 2012
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (Section 85) and associated guidelines outline that:
A rub-down search should be conducted with respect to the person’s dignity and privacy.
If an individual has no additional layers of clothing beneath their outer clothing, Police may not require them to remove, raise, lower, or open their outer clothing.
Requiring such action could result in exposing the person inappropriately, violating their rights.
Why Option B is Correct
Since Sarah has no bra underneath her T-shirt, requiring her to remove, raise, lower, or open her T-shirt would expose her unnecessarily, breaching her dignity and privacy.
In such a scenario, alternative methods (e.g., visual checks, private searches) may be considered, but the rub-down search must respect her circumstances.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. You may search any items removed from Sarah separately:
This is irrelevant to the situation, as the question pertains to her clothing rather than separate items.
C. You may require Sarah to remove, raise, lower, or open any of her outer clothing:
This is incorrect because requiring her to expose herself when she has no other clothing beneath would be a breach of her rights.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The search must be conducted in accordance with both legal requirements and the principles of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure and ensures respect for personal privacy and dignity.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 85 – Conduct of rub-down searches.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for conducting searches and respecting privacy.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
In Summary:
You may not require Sarah to remove, raise, lower, or open her outer clothing, as she has no other clothing beneath. This respects her privacy and complies with legal safeguards, making Option B correct.
Question 148
Can a person charged with Male Assaults Female (section 194(b) Crimes Act 1961), a category 3 offence, elect a jury trial?
A. Yes
B. No
C. It is at the prosecutor’s discretion
Answer: A. Yes
Reasoning
Understanding Category 3 Offences
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a Category 3 offence is an offence punishable by imprisonment of 2 years or more, and the defendant has the right to elect a jury trial.
Section 194(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, which covers Male Assaults Female, carries a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment, making it a Category 3 offence.
Right to Elect a Jury Trial
For Category 3 offences, the defendant is entitled to elect a jury trial unless:
The case is resolved through guilty pleas.
The defendant waives the right to a jury trial and agrees to a Judge-alone trial.
This right applies irrespective of the prosecutor’s position or discretion.
Why Option A is Correct
The defendant has the statutory right to elect a jury trial under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
This aligns with the fundamental principle of fairness in the judicial system, ensuring that defendants charged with serious offences have the option for a jury of their peers to decide their case.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. No:
This is incorrect because defendants charged with Category 3 offences explicitly have the right to elect a jury trial.
C. It is at the prosecutor’s discretion:
This is incorrect because the right to a jury trial is the defendant’s choice, not subject to the prosecutor’s discretion.
Relevant Legislation and Guidelines
The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 governs the classification of offences and trial types, and it grants the right to a jury trial for Category 3 offences unless explicitly waived by the defendant.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Rights associated with Category 3 offences.
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 194(b) – Male Assaults Female and associated penalties.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on offence classifications and trial processes.
In Summary:
A person charged with Male Assaults Female under Section 194(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, a Category 3 offence, can elect a jury trial, making Option A correct.
Question 149
The role of an interview support person for a special consideration witness is to:
A. Ensure their well-being and support their understanding of what is happening
B. Empathize with the witness and assist them to give their account
C. Protect the witness from wrongfully incriminating themselves or others
Answer: A. Ensure their well-being and support their understanding of what is happening
Reasoning
Role of a Support Person for a Special Consideration Witness
A special consideration witness may include individuals who are vulnerable due to age, intellectual or psychological impairment, or the nature of the offence being investigated.
The role of the support person is to ensure the witness feels safe and supported throughout the interview process, particularly in helping them understand the proceedings and reducing stress or anxiety.
Why Option A is Correct
The primary function of a support person is to:
Provide emotional support to the witness.
Ensure the witness understands the process and feels comfortable sharing their account.
Act as a calming presence to reduce the trauma or anxiety associated with being interviewed about distressing events.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. Empathize with the witness and assist them to give their account:
While empathy is important, the support person must not actively assist or influence the witness in giving their account. Their role is supportive, not participatory.
C. Protect the witness from wrongfully incriminating themselves or others:
This is not the role of a support person. Ensuring the fairness and legality of the process is the responsibility of the interviewer and legal professionals. The support person’s focus is on emotional and practical support.
Legal and Procedural Context
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and Evidence Act 2006 emphasize the importance of protecting and supporting vulnerable witnesses to ensure they can provide reliable and untainted evidence.
Support persons are bound by guidelines that restrict their involvement to non-interfering roles, ensuring they do not inadvertently contaminate the interview process.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Rights and protections for vulnerable witnesses.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Provisions for fair treatment of witnesses.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for interviewing special consideration witnesses.
In Summary:
The role of an interview support person is to ensure the well-being of the witness and support their understanding of what is happening, making Option A correct.
Question 150
When you need to remove a wet exhibit from a crime scene, how should you transport it to the police station?
A. Uplift and secure it in a clean and unsealed plastic bag
B. Uplift and secure it in an unsealed paper bag or kleensak
C. Uplift and secure it and seal the exhibit in a clean plastic bag
A. Uplift and secure it in a clean and unsealed plastic bag
Question 151
It must be established that an offender must have formed the intention to rob in relation to the offence ‘assault with intent to rob’:
A. At the time of the assault
B. At a time proximate to the planned robbery
C. Immediately after the assault
Answer: A. At the time of the assault
Reasoning
Key Elements of the Offence
The offence of assault with intent to rob, under Section 236 of the Crimes Act 1961, requires the prosecution to establish:
An assault occurred.
The offender had the intent to rob at the time of the assault.
The intent to rob must coincide with the act of assault. This means the offender must have already formed the intent to rob at the moment the assault occurred.
Why Option A is Correct
The intent to rob must exist at the time of the assault because the assault is the means by which the robbery is intended to occur.
If the intent is formed at a different time, such as after the assault, the elements of the offence would not align, and the charge of “assault with intent to rob” would not be applicable.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. At a time proximate to the planned robbery:
This is incorrect because the intent must coincide with the actual assault. A general intent to rob at a different time does not fulfill the requirements for this offence.
C. Immediately after the assault:
This is incorrect because forming the intent after the assault does not meet the standard for “assault with intent to rob.” The offence requires the assault to be carried out with the intent to facilitate or achieve the robbery.
Legal and Practical Implications
The prosecution must prove that the assault was carried out deliberately and purposefully to facilitate the robbery, making the timing of the intent critical.
This ensures the charge accurately reflects the offender’s actions and mental state at the time of the offence.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 236 – Assault with intent to rob.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on proving intent in criminal offences.
Case Law: Precedents establishing the timing of intent in relation to assault and robbery charges.
In Summary:
To meet the criteria for “assault with intent to rob,” the intent to rob must be formed at the time of the assault, making Option A correct.
Question 152
Victim Impact statements are required:
A. In most cases where there is an identifiable victim and others affected by the offence
B. In some cases when the judge requests the victim’s views to be read to the court
C. In every case involving an identifiable victim
Answer: A. In most cases where there is an identifiable victim and others affected by the offence
Reasoning
Purpose of Victim Impact Statements (VIS)
Victim Impact Statements (VIS) are intended to allow victims of crime and others affected by the offence to convey the emotional, physical, financial, or social impact of the offence to the court.
They help the court understand the full extent of harm caused by the offender’s actions and may be taken into account during sentencing.
When VIS Are Required
VIS are required in most cases where there is an identifiable victim and others impacted by the offence, as stipulated under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.
The police or the prosecutor must ensure victims are informed of their right to make a VIS.
However, it is not mandatory in every case, as certain circumstances may arise where no VIS is made (e.g., the victim does not wish to provide one).
Why Option A is Correct
This aligns with the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, which requires VIS in cases involving identifiable victims and allows for statements from others who may also be impacted.
It reflects the general practice that VIS are expected when there is an identifiable victim, but they are not required in every single case.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
B. In some cases when the judge requests the victim’s views to be read to the court:
This is incorrect because VIS are primarily the victim’s right, and their submission does not depend solely on a judge’s request.
C. In every case involving an identifiable victim:
This is incorrect because while VIS are encouraged in most cases, they are not mandatory. Victims may choose not to make a statement, and not all cases may involve submissions of VIS.
Legal and Procedural Context
Police and prosecution are responsible for informing victims of their rights to make a VIS, but victims retain the choice to exercise this right.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Outlines requirements for Victim Impact Statements.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on victim support and handling VIS.
Sentencing Act 2002 (NZ): Incorporates VIS into the sentencing process.
In Summary:
Victim Impact Statements are required in most cases where there is an identifiable victim and others affected by the offence, making Option A correct.
Question 153
In the engage and explain phase of an interview with a witness who is fearful or distressed about the consequences of making a statement you should:
A. Alert a supervisor to their status as a special consideration witness and the need for a specialist interviewer
B. Consider their concerns, assess their reasons, discuss with your supervisor if a visually recorded interview is required
C. Consider their concerns, and do not proceed with the interview if they do not have a support person
Answer: B. Consider their concerns, assess their reasons, discuss with your supervisor if a visually recorded interview is required
Reasoning
The Engage and Explain Phase
The engage and explain phase of an interview is crucial for establishing rapport, understanding the witness’s concerns, and explaining the process.
For witnesses who are fearful or distressed, it is essential to address their concerns empathetically while ensuring their rights and the integrity of the interview process are maintained.
Why Option B is Correct
Consider their concerns: Acknowledge the witness’s fears or distress, which helps build rapport and trust.
Assess their reasons: Understand the specific reasons for their apprehension (e.g., fear of retaliation, emotional distress).
Discuss with your supervisor: If the witness meets the criteria for a special consideration witness, a visually recorded interview may be appropriate to preserve their account and ensure their protection.
This approach balances addressing the witness’s concerns with ensuring procedural fairness and evidential integrity.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Alert a supervisor to their status as a special consideration witness and the need for a specialist interviewer:
This is incorrect because not all fearful or distressed witnesses automatically qualify as special consideration witnesses. Assessing their concerns and circumstances must occur first before making this determination.
C. Consider their concerns, and do not proceed with the interview if they do not have a support person:
This is incorrect because a support person is not always mandatory unless the witness is identified as a special consideration witness or requests one. Police can proceed after addressing their concerns appropriately.
Legal and Procedural Context
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and New Zealand Police Manual emphasize the importance of addressing witnesses’ fears and concerns while ensuring interviews are conducted fairly and lawfully.
Supervisors play a key role in determining if special measures, such as specialist interviewers or visual recording, are required.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Rights and protections for vulnerable witnesses.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for witness interviews and managing distressed individuals.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Provisions for special consideration witnesses.
In Summary:
In the engage and explain phase, you should consider the witness’s concerns, assess their reasons, and consult with your supervisor if a visually recorded interview is required. This makes Option B correct.
Question 154
Simon is having an extremely noisy party at his house. A noise abatement notice has been served on Simon but he decides to ignore it and turn the stereo up louder. The local council agent returns to the address to seize the stereo. Simon picks up a golf club, holds it up in the air and states to the agent “the stereo is not going anywhere and if you come any closer I will smack your head in.” What is the most appropriate Crimes Act 1961 assault offence?
A. Assault with intent to injure (section 193)
B. Aggravated assault (section 192)
C. Common assault (section 196)
Answer: B. Aggravated assault (section 192)
Reasoning
Definition of Aggravated Assault (Section 192 of the Crimes Act 1961):
Aggravated assault occurs when an assault is committed with aggravating factors such as:
Intent to cause actual bodily harm.
Use of a weapon or object that poses a threat to the victim.
Why Option B is Correct:
In this scenario:
Simon holds up a golf club, a potentially dangerous weapon.
He makes a verbal threat to use the golf club to harm the council agent (“I will smack your head in”), demonstrating intent to cause harm.
These actions escalate the offence to aggravated assault because they involve a threat with a weapon capable of inflicting injury.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Assault with intent to injure (section 193):
This offence involves intent to cause actual physical injury, but Simon has not physically assaulted the agent or caused injury. The threat with a weapon fits the aggravated assault criteria more appropriately.
C. Common assault (section 196):
Common assault involves a physical or verbal threat without aggravating factors. The use of a golf club as a weapon makes this a more serious offence than common assault.
Legal Context:
The Crimes Act 1961 distinguishes between levels of assault based on intent, the presence of a weapon, and whether physical harm occurred. Simon’s actions satisfy the elements of aggravated assault due to the threat with a weapon.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 192 – Aggravated assault.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on categorizing assault offences based on circumstances and intent.
Case Law Precedents: Examples where threats with weapons have been classified as aggravated assault.
In Summary:
Simon’s actions—holding a golf club and threatening the council agent with harm—constitute aggravated assault under section 192 of the Crimes Act 1961, making Option B correct.
Question 155
All material gathered during an investigation should be evaluated through the filters of:
A. Corroboration, accuracy, fairness
B. Fact, assumption, hearsay
C. Relevance, reliability, admissibility
Answer: C. Relevance, reliability, admissibility
Reasoning
Evaluation of Investigative Material
During an investigation, material collected (e.g., evidence, witness statements) must be evaluated using specific filters to ensure that it meets legal and procedural standards.
The filters of relevance, reliability, and admissibility are critical for determining whether the material can be presented in court.
Why Option C is Correct:
Relevance:
The material must be connected to the case and have a bearing on the facts in issue. Irrelevant material has no place in legal proceedings.
Reliability:
The source and method of collection must be trustworthy to ensure the material can be relied upon in court.
Admissibility:
Material must comply with rules of evidence, including those set out in the Evidence Act 2006, to be accepted in court. For example, material obtained unlawfully may be excluded.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Corroboration, accuracy, fairness:
While these are important considerations during an investigation, they are not the legal filters applied to all investigative material. Corroboration and fairness relate more to investigative integrity than the legal evaluation of evidence.
B. Fact, assumption, hearsay:
This is incorrect because assumptions and hearsay are not legal filters. In fact, hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it meets specific exceptions under the Evidence Act 2006.
Legal Context:
The Evidence Act 2006 outlines the principles of relevance, reliability, and admissibility as key tests for determining whether evidence can be used in court.
These filters ensure that the material presented during legal proceedings is fair, accurate, and compliant with procedural laws.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Principles of admissibility, relevance, and reliability of evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on evidence collection and evaluation.
Case Law: Court rulings emphasizing the importance of admissibility and reliability in evidence handling.
In Summary:
All material gathered during an investigation should be evaluated through the filters of relevance, reliability, and admissibility, making Option C correct.
Question 156
You are considering charging someone with Burglary. Before you do, you must satisfy the Test for Prosecution contained in the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines. Which component of the test should you conduct first?
A. The evidential test - if the evidence meets the evidential test we can then consider the public interest
B. The public interest test - if prosecution is of benefit to the public we can then consider the evidential test
C. It doesn’t matter which order we complete the tests, we should always do both
Answer: A. The evidential test - if the evidence meets the evidential test we can then consider the public interest
Reasoning
Understanding the Test for Prosecution
The Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines require that a two-part test is satisfied before proceeding with prosecution:
Evidential Test: Ensures there is sufficient, admissible, and reliable evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Public Interest Test: Considers whether prosecution is in the public interest, taking into account factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the harm caused, and the circumstances of the offender.
Why Option A is Correct:
The evidential test must be conducted first to determine whether there is enough evidence to support a prosecution.
If the evidential test is not met, there is no point in considering the public interest test because the prosecution cannot proceed without sufficient evidence.
This step ensures that legal proceedings are not initiated on weak or inadmissible evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. The public interest test - if prosecution is of benefit to the public we can then consider the evidential test:
This is incorrect because public interest cannot override the need for sufficient evidence. A case cannot proceed solely based on public interest if the evidential threshold is not met.
C. It doesn’t matter which order we complete the tests, we should always do both:
This is incorrect because the order is critical. The evidential test must be passed first before considering public interest; otherwise, resources may be wasted on a case with no prospect of success.
Legal Context:
The Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines emphasize the importance of the evidential test as the first threshold to prevent unnecessary or unwarranted prosecutions.
Sources
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (NZ): Framework for deciding whether to prosecute.
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Legal requirements for burglary charges.
New Zealand Police Manual: Steps for applying the prosecution guidelines.
In Summary:
Before charging someone with burglary, you must first satisfy the evidential test to ensure there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Only then should the public interest test be considered, making Option A correct.
Question 157
In applying the evidential test, you must determine if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction through examining the:
A. Sufficiency of the admissible evidence
B. Completeness of the admissible evidence
C. Validity of the admissible evidence
Answer: A. Sufficiency of the admissible evidence
Reasoning
Purpose of the Evidential Test
The evidential test is a key component of the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines, requiring prosecutors to ensure there is a reasonable prospect of conviction based on the evidence available.
The sufficiency of admissible evidence is the primary factor in determining whether the test is satisfied.
Why Option A is Correct:
Sufficiency means there must be enough admissible and reliable evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction if the case proceeds to court.
This involves assessing the quantity and quality of the evidence, ensuring it can support the legal elements of the offence.
If the evidence is insufficient, the prosecution cannot proceed, regardless of other considerations.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. Completeness of the admissible evidence:
While completeness may contribute to the quality of evidence, it is not the deciding factor in the evidential test. The focus is on whether the evidence is sufficient to meet the threshold for prosecution.
C. Validity of the admissible evidence:
Validity relates to whether the evidence is legally obtained and admissible. While this is important, it is part of evaluating sufficiency rather than the sole criterion.
Legal and Procedural Context:
The Evidence Act 2006 provides the legal framework for determining the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence.
Prosecutors must ensure the evidence is admissible, reliable, and sufficient to prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sources
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (NZ): Standards for applying the evidential test.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Framework for admissibility and sufficiency of evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on evaluating evidence for prosecution decisions.
In Summary:
The evidential test requires examining the sufficiency of the admissible evidence to ensure a reasonable prospect of conviction, making Option A correct.
Question 158
In a forensic sense, what does persistence refer to?
A. The nature of the procedures undertaken by forensic specialists
B. The way in which biological material adheres to a surface
C. The length of time biological material can be detected following a crime
Answer: C. The length of time biological material can be detected following a crime
Reasoning
Definition of Persistence in a Forensic Context
Persistence refers to the ability of biological evidence (e.g., blood, DNA, semen, saliva) to remain detectable at a crime scene over time.
It depends on several factors, including the environment, surface type, and actions taken at the scene (e.g., cleaning or exposure to weather).
Why Option C is Correct:
Persistence specifically relates to how long biological material can be detected after a crime has occurred.
Forensic scientists consider persistence to estimate the age of evidence, its exposure, and whether it has been affected by external factors like weather, heat, or cleaning.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. The nature of the procedures undertaken by forensic specialists:
This relates to forensic methodologies, such as collection and analysis, not the persistence of biological material itself.
B. The way in which biological material adheres to a surface:
This pertains to factors like transfer and retention of material, but persistence focuses on detectability over time, not adherence.
Forensic Applications:
Understanding persistence helps forensic specialists determine whether evidence has degraded or if it can still provide useful information for investigation and analysis.
For example, DNA evidence can persist for days, weeks, or even years, depending on the conditions under which it is preserved.
Sources
Forensic Science Guidelines: Persistence in biological evidence collection and analysis.
Evidence Collection Best Practices: Factors affecting the longevity and detectability of biological material.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for handling and assessing forensic evidence.
In Summary:
Persistence in a forensic sense refers to the length of time biological material can be detected following a crime, making Option C correct.
Question 159
Which statement best describes hypotheses and why you might use them?
A. Hypotheses suggest explanations for a group of facts. They are used to support the interpretation of evidence
B. Hypotheses suggest explanations for a group of facts. They can be used to generate lines of inquiry
C. Hypotheses are the product of creative thinking. They are used to verify the collection of evidential material
Answer: B. Hypotheses suggest explanations for a group of facts. They can be used to generate lines of inquiry
Reasoning
Definition of a Hypothesis in an Investigative Context
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a group of facts or observations.
In investigations, hypotheses help identify potential scenarios or explanations and guide the development of investigative strategies.
Why Option B is Correct:
Hypotheses are critical for generating lines of inquiry that can be tested through further evidence collection, analysis, and investigation.
By suggesting explanations for the facts, investigators can explore different possibilities, eliminate unlikely scenarios, and focus resources on gathering evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Hypotheses suggest explanations for a group of facts. They are used to support the interpretation of evidence:
This is incorrect because hypotheses are not used merely to support evidence interpretation; they are a tool for guiding the investigative process and testing possibilities.
C. Hypotheses are the product of creative thinking. They are used to verify the collection of evidential material:
While hypotheses may involve creative thinking, their purpose is not to verify evidence collection but to guide inquiries and determine the relevance of evidence.
Practical Application:
Investigators use hypotheses to establish potential motives, methods, and suspects. For example:
If a burglary occurred, hypotheses might include the offender’s entry point, target, and escape route.
Testing these hypotheses through witness interviews, forensic analysis, or surveillance footage narrows the scope of the investigation.
Sources
Criminal Investigation Techniques: The role of hypotheses in evidence-based investigations.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on investigative planning and hypothesis development.
Forensic Science Practices: Use of hypotheses in linking evidence to scenarios.
In Summary:
Hypotheses suggest explanations for a group of facts and are primarily used to generate lines of inquiry in an investigation, making Option B correct.
Question 160
What is meant by an investigator’s ‘working rules’?
A. The investigation rules that are known but not always applied
B. The knowledge and skills learnt from investigator experience
C. The rules set down in the NZP Police Code of Conduct
Answer: B. The knowledge and skills learnt from investigator experience
Reasoning
Definition of ‘Working Rules’:
An investigator’s working rules are the practical guidelines, habits, and approaches they develop over time through experience in conducting investigations.
These rules are not formalized in legislation or codes but are shaped by practical knowledge and lessons learned from past cases.
Why Option B is Correct:
Working rules encompass the knowledge and skills that an investigator gains through experience, such as how to interview witnesses effectively, identify inconsistencies in evidence, or prioritize investigative tasks.
These rules help investigators navigate the complexities of real-world cases and adapt to unique situations.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. The investigation rules that are known but not always applied:
This is incorrect because working rules are not about formal rules being ignored or inconsistently applied. Instead, they are practical skills and techniques developed through experience.
C. The rules set down in the NZP Police Code of Conduct:
This is incorrect because the NZP Police Code of Conduct governs ethical behavior and professional standards, not the practical strategies investigators use in their work.
Application of Working Rules:
Working rules often involve best practices for evidence handling, interview techniques, and assessing witness credibility.
For example, an experienced investigator might develop a “working rule” to always confirm alibis with at least two independent sources or to take extra care when interviewing vulnerable witnesses.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Training and development for investigators.
NZP Police Code of Conduct: Ethical standards and formal rules for police officers.
Investigator Training Resources: Practical guidelines and best practices for investigative work.
In Summary:
An investigator’s working rules are the knowledge and skills learned from experience, which guide their approach to investigations. This makes Option B correct.
Question 161
When making a reconstruction of a crime scene, you must remember to:
A. Revise your reconstruction as new facts are obtained
B. Delay your reconstruction until all facts are established
C. Always start at your initial point of entry to the scene
Answer: A. Revise your reconstruction as new facts are obtained
Reasoning
Purpose of Crime Scene Reconstruction:
Crime scene reconstruction involves piecing together the sequence of events leading up to, during, and after a crime.
It is an ongoing process that evolves as new evidence and facts are uncovered.
Why Option A is Correct:
Crime scenes can be complex, and investigators often uncover new evidence or information during the course of an investigation.
Revising the reconstruction ensures it reflects the most accurate and complete understanding of the events.
This iterative approach aligns with the investigative principle of being open to new information and adapting theories or hypotheses accordingly.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. Delay your reconstruction until all facts are established:
This is incorrect because waiting for all facts to be established would significantly delay the investigative process. Reconstruction is a dynamic and ongoing process, not something reserved for the conclusion of an investigation.
C. Always start at your initial point of entry to the scene:
This is incorrect because the starting point of a reconstruction depends on the nature of the crime and the evidence available. It is not mandatory to begin at the initial point of entry to the scene.
Best Practices in Crime Scene Reconstruction:
Begin with the evidence available at the scene and update the reconstruction as additional forensic analysis, witness accounts, or suspect interviews provide more details.
Use tools like sketches, photographs, and 3D modeling to adjust and refine the reconstruction.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for crime scene investigation and reconstruction.
Forensic Science Resources: Best practices in crime scene analysis and reconstruction.
Criminal Investigation Techniques: Emphasis on the dynamic nature of crime scene reconstruction.
In Summary:
Crime scene reconstruction should be revised as new facts are obtained to ensure it remains accurate and reflective of the evidence, making Option A correct.
Question 162
If you are first at the scene where a body has been found, your first response must be to:
A. Ensure the scene is safe to enter
B. Check for signs of life and render assistance accordingly
C. Mark the position of the body on the ground
A. Ensure the scene is safe to enter
Question 163
When a DVD of an adult witness interview is to be used as evidence-in-chief, the O/C case must ensure:
A. A support person was present in the interview room during the interview
B. The witness has viewed the video and given their signed consent for it to be used
C. All matters that may be the subject of cross-examination are covered in the video
Answer: B. The witness has viewed the video and given their signed consent for it to be used
Reasoning
Use of DVD Evidence-in-Chief:
When an adult witness interview is recorded and intended to be used as evidence-in-chief, the process must comply with legal and procedural requirements to ensure admissibility.
One such requirement is that the witness views the recorded interview and consents in writing to its use as evidence.
Why Option B is Correct:
The witness’s consent is a procedural safeguard ensuring that they agree to the content of the interview being submitted as evidence.
Viewing the video allows the witness to confirm that it accurately represents their account, minimizing potential disputes during trial.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. A support person was present in the interview room during the interview:
While this is mandatory for certain vulnerable or special consideration witnesses, it is not a general requirement for all adult witnesses.
C. All matters that may be the subject of cross-examination are covered in the video:
This is not feasible or required. Cross-examination is determined by the defense during trial, and the content of the interview does not need to preemptively address every potential line of questioning.
Legal and Procedural Context:
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Sets the framework for the admissibility of recorded interviews.
New Zealand Police Manual: Provides specific guidance on ensuring that witness consent is obtained for using recorded interviews as evidence-in-chief.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Admissibility of recorded interviews.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for witness interviews and use of evidence-in-chief.
Best Practices for Recorded Evidence: Witness review and consent processes.
In Summary:
Before a DVD of an adult witness interview can be used as evidence-in-chief, the witness must view the video and provide signed consent for its use, making Option B correct.
Question 164
If a witness becomes a suspect during an interview, then the interviewer should:
A. Caution, shift to procedures for interviewing suspects, and ensure the interview is visually recorded
B. Switch to conversation management to control the suspect and continue to interview
C. Caution and detain the witness, close the interview, and inform their supervisor
Answer: A. Caution, shift to procedures for interviewing suspects, and ensure the interview is visually recorded
Reasoning
Transition from Witness to Suspect:
If new information arises during an interview that suggests the witness may be involved in the offence, they are no longer just a witness—they are now a suspect.
The change in their status requires adherence to suspect interview procedures, which include issuing a caution and ensuring their legal rights are upheld.
Why Option A is Correct:
A caution must be given to inform the individual of their right to remain silent and their right to legal representation.
Once the individual is a suspect, all further questioning must comply with procedures for suspect interviews, including ensuring that the interview is visually recorded to provide a clear and admissible record of their statements.
This approach ensures compliance with legal standards and protects the integrity of the evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. Switch to conversation management to control the suspect and continue to interview:
This is incorrect because no interview can continue with a suspect unless they are properly cautioned and suspect interview procedures are followed.
C. Caution and detain the witness, close the interview, and inform their supervisor:
While a caution is required, closing the interview immediately is unnecessary. The interview can proceed under suspect procedures, provided their rights are respected.
Legal and Procedural Context:
The Evidence Act 2006 (NZ) and Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning outline the requirements for cautioning suspects and ensuring their rights are protected.
Failing to caution and visually record the interview could render any statements inadmissible in court.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Legal rights of suspects and admissibility of evidence.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Cautioning requirements and suspect interview protocols.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for transitioning from witness to suspect interviews.
In Summary:
If a witness becomes a suspect, the interviewer must caution them, shift to suspect interview procedures, and ensure the interview is visually recorded, making Option A correct.
Question 165
The Investigative Interviewing Suspect guide provides direction on how to introduce a challenge. It suggests a process of using a sequence of phrases starting with key words:
A. You said…I know…Why is that…
B. You said…We have…Explain that…
C. You said…We know…Tell me…
B. You said…We have…Explain that…
Question 166
Whilst executing a search warrant for stolen property, you open a hallway cupboard and see a large ziplock bag that contains what you are certain is cannabis plant material. Under Section 123 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you may:
A. Seize the item for the purpose of further analysis
B. Seize the item in the interim while a search warrant is being prepared
C. Seize the item if you have reasonable grounds to believe you could have seized the item under any search warrant you could have obtained
Answer: C. Seize the item if you have reasonable grounds to believe you could have seized the item under any search warrant you could have obtained
Reasoning
Understanding Section 123 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012:
Section 123 authorizes the seizure of items discovered inadvertently during the execution of a search warrant, provided:
The officer has reasonable grounds to believe the item could have been lawfully seized under another search warrant for the same location or offence.
The item must be linked to criminal activity or relevant to the offence being investigated.
Why Option C is Correct:
If the cannabis plant material is identified during a lawful search for stolen property, and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe it constitutes evidence of a criminal offence (e.g., possession or cultivation of cannabis), they are justified in seizing it under Section 123.
The reasoning is that such material could have been seized if a search warrant had been specifically issued for it.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Seize the item for the purpose of further analysis:
While further analysis may occur after seizure, the authority to seize the item is not based on analysis purposes but on reasonable grounds that the item could have been seized under a valid warrant.
B. Seize the item in the interim while a search warrant is being prepared:
This is incorrect because Section 123 does not allow for seizure “in the interim.” The power to seize applies immediately if the officer has reasonable grounds to justify the action.
Practical Application:
In this scenario, the officer’s certainty about the cannabis material provides the reasonable grounds required to seize it, ensuring compliance with Section 123.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 123 – Powers to seize items discovered incidentally during a search.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for executing search warrants and handling incidental discoveries.
Criminal Law Best Practices: Handling of evidence found outside the primary scope of a search warrant.
In Summary:
Under Section 123, you may seize the cannabis plant material if you have reasonable grounds to believe it could have been seized under any valid search warrant, making Option C correct.
Question 167
Which of the following actions is one way of preventing post-incident cross-contamination of a victim of a serious assault?
A. Transporting the victim and offender in the same vehicle
B. Ensuring different officers interview the victim and suspect
C. Taking photos of the victim as soon as possible
Answer: B. Ensuring different officers interview the victim and suspect
Reasoning
Understanding Cross-Contamination:
Cross-contamination in a post-incident context refers to the unintentional transfer of evidence, information, or influence between individuals (e.g., victim and suspect) or between different aspects of the investigation.
Preventing such contamination ensures the integrity of evidence and witness accounts.
Why Option B is Correct:
Separate interviews by different officers minimize the risk of influence or contamination of information between the victim and the suspect.
This approach prevents:
Unintended sharing of evidence or statements.
Claims of unfairness or bias during court proceedings.
Ensuring separate officers conduct the interviews is a standard best practice for maintaining procedural integrity.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Transporting the victim and offender in the same vehicle:
This would increase the risk of cross-contamination, as the victim and suspect could potentially exchange verbal or non-verbal interactions that affect the case.
C. Taking photos of the victim as soon as possible:
While documenting evidence (like photos) is important, this action does not directly address cross-contamination between the victim and suspect.
Best Practices for Preventing Cross-Contamination:
Ensure victims and suspects are kept physically and procedurally separate.
Use different officers for different roles (e.g., interviewing, collecting evidence, or managing logistics).
Avoid shared transport or contact between individuals involved.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on victim and suspect management.
Forensic Science Procedures: Recommendations for avoiding contamination in investigations.
Criminal Justice Best Practices: Principles of impartiality and procedural fairness.
In Summary:
To prevent post-incident cross-contamination, it is critical to ensure different officers interview the victim and suspect, making Option B correct.
Question 168
What must happen before a Judge can require a plea to be entered?
A. Initial disclosure has been delivered and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice
B. The defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice
C. The defendant’s second appearance
Answer: A. Initial disclosure has been delivered and the defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice
Reasoning
Plea Requirements in New Zealand Law:
Before a Judge can require a defendant to enter a plea, the defendant must be adequately informed about the charges and evidence against them. This ensures the plea is made with full understanding of the case.
Why Option A is Correct:
Initial disclosure is a fundamental procedural step. It provides the defendant with details about the charges and key evidence, allowing them to make an informed decision.
Opportunity for legal advice ensures the defendant understands their rights and options before entering a plea.
These steps align with principles of fairness and procedural justice under New Zealand law.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. The defendant has had the opportunity to obtain legal advice:
While legal advice is critical, it is not sufficient on its own. The defendant must also receive initial disclosure to understand the case against them fully.
C. The defendant’s second appearance:
The timing of the plea is not automatically tied to the second appearance. The plea can only be required once the defendant has received both initial disclosure and the opportunity for legal advice.
Legal Context:
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ), initial disclosure and access to legal advice are essential procedural safeguards before a plea is entered.
These requirements ensure the defendant’s rights are upheld and that any plea entered is informed and voluntary.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Requirements for entering a plea.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for initial disclosure and court processes.
Legal Aid Guidelines: Ensuring defendants can access legal advice.
In Summary:
Before a Judge can require a plea, initial disclosure must be delivered, and the defendant must have had the opportunity to obtain legal advice, making Option A correct.
Question 169
When applying the evidential test, you must consider if there is sufficient admissible evidence to:
A. Provide a reasonable prospect of conviction
B. Establish a prima facie case
C. Suspect an offence has been committed
Answer: A. Provide a reasonable prospect of conviction
Reasoning
Evidential Test Overview:
The evidential test is part of the prosecution decision-making process, as outlined in the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines.
It requires evaluating whether the evidence is sufficient and admissible to justify proceeding with a prosecution.
Why Option A is Correct:
The evidential test requires there to be sufficient admissible evidence that provides a reasonable prospect of conviction in court.
This standard ensures the evidence is strong enough to meet the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is beyond reasonable doubt.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. Establish a prima facie case:
Establishing a prima facie case means showing there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. However, the evidential test goes further by requiring an assessment of the likelihood of conviction, not just a prima facie case.
C. Suspect an offence has been committed:
Suspecting an offence has been committed is the threshold for commencing an investigation, not for applying the evidential test. The evidential test is applied at a later stage to determine whether prosecution is warranted.
Legal Context:
The Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines emphasize that prosecutors must apply both the evidential test (reasonable prospect of conviction) and the public interest test before proceeding with charges.
Sources
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines (NZ): Framework for prosecution decisions.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Requirements for evidence and prosecution processes.
New Zealand Police Manual: Steps for applying the evidential and public interest tests.
In Summary:
The evidential test focuses on whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction, making Option A correct.
Question 170
Pursuant to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you are searching a prisoner incidental to arrest. In his possession, you find a cell phone that you have established is stolen. When bailed an hour later, he asks for the cell phone back. What should you do?
A. Give him the cell phone back.
B. Refuse to give him the cell phone back because it was seized in a lawful search.
C. Charge him in relation to the cell phone and retain possession of the property.
Answer: C. Charge him in relation to the cell phone and retain possession of the property
Reasoning
Search Incidental to Arrest:
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a search incidental to arrest allows officers to seize property that may be evidence of an offence.
The cell phone, established as stolen, becomes an exhibit in the investigation and must be retained as evidence.
Why Option C is Correct:
Charging the individual with the relevant offence (e.g., theft or receiving stolen property) is appropriate because the phone has been lawfully seized and identified as stolen property.
Retaining the phone ensures its availability as evidence for prosecution and aligns with proper case management procedures.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Give him the cell phone back:
Returning stolen property to the suspect would undermine the investigation and may lead to the loss of evidence. This is legally inappropriate.
B. Refuse to give him the cell phone back because it was seized in a lawful search:
While refusal to return the property is correct, further action (i.e., charging the suspect) must also be taken to properly process the offence.
Legal Context:
Section 123 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows for the retention of seized property as evidence in connection with an offence.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 ensures proper handling of exhibits in court proceedings.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Provisions for searches incidental to arrest and seizure of evidence.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Requirements for handling and retaining evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on evidence retention and charging suspects.
In Summary:
When a stolen cell phone is found during a search incidental to arrest, the proper course of action is to charge the suspect in relation to the phone and retain it as evidence, making Option C correct.
Question 171
George is running down a crowded street. He grabs the shoulder bag of a passing female. He twists her arm as she tries to hold on to her bag. The pain causes her to let go of the bag, and George takes off. The most appropriate offence in relation to the actions of George is:
A. ‘Theft’ in relation to the stolen property and ‘assault’ in relation to the violence
B. ‘Robbery’ as the theft was accompanied by a sufficient level of violence
C. ‘Theft’ as the violence used was minimal and would not constitute robbery
Answer: B. ‘Robbery’ as the theft was accompanied by a sufficient level of violence
Reasoning
Definition of Robbery (Section 234, Crimes Act 1961):
Robbery is defined as theft accompanied by violence or the threat of violence used to overcome resistance or compel the victim to part with property.
In this case, George used physical violence (twisting the arm) to make the victim release her bag, fulfilling the elements of robbery.
Why Option B is Correct:
George’s act of grabbing the bag and twisting the victim’s arm constitutes theft accompanied by a sufficient level of violence to overcome the victim’s resistance.
The pain caused to the victim meets the threshold of violence required for robbery under the law.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. ‘Theft’ in relation to the stolen property and ‘assault’ in relation to the violence:
This option incorrectly separates the theft and the violence as distinct offences. In robbery, theft and violence are combined into a single offence.
C. ‘Theft’ as the violence used was minimal and would not constitute robbery:
Any degree of violence used to facilitate the theft or overcome resistance elevates the offence to robbery, regardless of whether the violence was “minimal.”
Legal Context:
Section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961 clearly outlines that any violence accompanying theft constitutes robbery.
Case law emphasizes that even minor physical acts, if sufficient to overcome resistance, meet the threshold for robbery.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961 (NZ): Section 234 – Definition of robbery.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on categorizing offences involving theft and violence.
Judicial Precedents: Case law interpreting robbery under New Zealand law.
In Summary:
George’s actions of using violence (twisting the arm) during the theft constitute robbery under Section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961, making Option B correct.
Question 172
When a person is to be locked up in Police custody, a search can be undertaken under s11. The primary purpose of this search is to:
A. Remove money or property for safekeeping
B. Take items that may be used to self-harm
C. Seize any evidential material found
Answer: B. Take items that may be used to self-harm
Reasoning
Understanding Section 11 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012:
Section 11 provides powers for searching a person taken into Police custody.
The primary purpose of this search is to ensure the safety of the individual and others by removing items that could be used to harm themselves or others.
Why Option B is Correct:
The prevention of self-harm is the central goal when searching someone in custody. This ensures the individual’s safety while in a controlled environment.
Items such as weapons, sharp objects, or anything else that could be used to self-harm or harm others must be removed.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Remove money or property for safekeeping:
While money or valuable property may be removed and logged for safekeeping, this is a secondary purpose of the search, not the primary one.
C. Seize any evidential material found:
Any evidential material found during a search can be seized, but the search is not primarily conducted for gathering evidence. The focus is on safety rather than investigation.
Legal Context:
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and Police custody management guidelines emphasize the priority of safety in all searches of individuals being detained.
Preventing harm is the primary duty of care under custodial practices.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ): Section 11 – Searches incidental to detention.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for custody and prisoner safety procedures.
Criminal Justice Best Practices: Principles of safeguarding individuals in custody.
In Summary:
The primary purpose of a search under Section 11 is to remove items that could be used for self-harm, making Option B correct.
Question 173
You are interviewing an offender arrested for ‘receiving’. While attempting to establish the identity of the original thief, the offender begins to tell conflicting accounts. You now decide to change interview styles and begin to very strongly put questions to him demanding explanations and answers to your questions. He eventually gives the identity of the thief and other evidence against himself. Would the above evidence by your offender be admissible in Court?
A. Yes, because demanding answers to questions and using your personality when interviewing is legitimate
B. No, once a person has been arrested for an offence, they cannot be interviewed about that original offence
C. No, because the offender was in custody and questions must not amount to cross-examination
Answer: C. No, because the offender was in custody and questions must not amount to cross-examination
Reasoning
Custodial Interviews and Legal Protections:
When a suspect is in custody, interviews must be conducted in compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) and the Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning.
Questions posed to a suspect must be fair, reasonable, and not amount to cross-examination or coercion.
Why Option C is Correct:
Cross-examination involves aggressive or repetitive questioning designed to elicit specific responses or confessions, which is prohibited during a custodial interview.
The offender’s conflicting accounts do not justify changing to a forceful questioning style that demands answers, as this risks the evidence being deemed inadmissible due to the oppressive nature of the questioning.
The Court could rule the evidence inadmissible on the grounds of unfairness or oppression, violating the suspect’s rights under NZBORA.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Yes, because demanding answers to questions and using your personality when interviewing is legitimate:
While an interviewer may use their personality and challenge a suspect, demanding answers in an aggressive or coercive manner during a custodial interview is not legitimate.
B. No, once a person has been arrested for an offence, they cannot be interviewed about that original offence:
This is incorrect; suspects can be interviewed about the offence for which they were arrested, provided proper procedures are followed, including administering rights under NZBORA.
Legal Context:
The Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning prohibits the use of threats, promises, or oppressive questioning techniques.
Section 29 of the Evidence Act 2006 states that any statement obtained by oppression is inadmissible.
Judges assess admissibility by examining whether the suspect’s rights were respected and if the interview was conducted fairly.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Section 29 – Exclusion of statements influenced by oppression.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA): Rights during detention, including freedom from coercion.
Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning: Guidelines for interviewing suspects.
In Summary:
The offender’s evidence would likely be ruled inadmissible because questions amounting to cross-examination are prohibited during a custodial interview, making Option C correct.
Question 174
When should witness interviews be conducted?
A. As close in time to the incident/offence as possible to minimise memory loss and contamination
B. As soon as a suitable interviewing room and recording resources are available
C. When the witness has had time to talk with a support person and get their thoughts together
Answer: A. As close in time to the incident/offence as possible to minimise memory loss and contamination
Reasoning
Timeliness of Witness Interviews:
Memory accuracy deteriorates over time, and external influences (such as discussions with others or media exposure) can contaminate a witness’s recollection.
Conducting interviews as soon as possible after the incident ensures the most accurate and reliable evidence.
Why Option A is Correct:
Witness interviews should be conducted promptly to capture untainted recollections while the incident is still fresh in the witness’s memory.
This reduces the risk of memory decay and external contamination, which can weaken the reliability of evidence.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. As soon as a suitable interviewing room and recording resources are available:
While appropriate facilities are important, they should not delay the interview unnecessarily. Field interviews can be conducted when necessary, particularly in urgent cases.
C. When the witness has had time to talk with a support person and get their thoughts together:
Allowing time for discussions with a support person could inadvertently contaminate the witness’s memory by introducing external influences or suggestions.
Legal and Best Practice Context:
New Zealand Police guidelines emphasize the need to gather evidence from witnesses promptly to preserve accuracy and reliability.
Witness testimony plays a critical role in investigations, and ensuring the integrity of the evidence is paramount.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for conducting witness interviews.
Investigative Interviewing Techniques: Emphasis on minimising memory contamination and delays.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Standards for evidence gathering.
In Summary:
Witness interviews should be conducted as close in time to the incident/offence as possible to ensure accuracy and prevent memory loss or contamination, making Option A correct.
Question 175
You and a colleague are separately interviewing two suspects at the station. Your suspect is uncooperative, so you leave the room, return five minutes later, and tell him that his friend has admitted taking part in the burglary. He shrugs, readily admits his involvement, and later pleads guilty. Would the above admission by your suspect be admissible in Court?
A. No, because your suspect was not given a written statement from the other suspect
B. No, because the admission was obtained by misrepresenting the truth to your suspect
C. Yes, because there was no duress, and the suspect freely made the admission of guilt
Answer: B. No, because the admission was obtained by misrepresenting the truth to your suspect
Reasoning
Admissions and Misrepresentation:
The Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning outlines that statements made by suspects must be voluntary and obtained fairly.
Misleading or misrepresenting the truth to elicit a confession undermines the voluntariness and reliability of the admission.
Why Option B is Correct:
Telling the suspect that their friend had confessed, when this was not true, constitutes misrepresentation.
Admissions obtained through misleading tactics are likely to be ruled inadmissible because they do not meet the standard of fairness required under the Evidence Act 2006 (NZ), Section 28 (voluntariness) and Section 30 (unfairly obtained evidence).
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. No, because your suspect was not given a written statement from the other suspect:
There is no requirement for the suspect to be provided with a written statement from the other suspect to make an admission valid. This option is irrelevant to the issue of admissibility.
C. Yes, because there was no duress, and the suspect freely made the admission of guilt:
While there may not have been duress, the use of false information invalidates the voluntariness of the admission. The fairness standard is breached by misrepresentation.
Legal Context:
Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Requires that admissions be voluntary.
Section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Excludes evidence obtained unfairly.
The Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning: Prohibits tactics such as misrepresentation or deception in suspect interviews.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Sections 28 and 30 – Rules on voluntariness and unfairly obtained evidence.
Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning: Guidelines for fairness during suspect questioning.
New Zealand Police Manual: Ethical guidelines for interviewing suspects.
In Summary:
The admission by the suspect would likely be ruled inadmissible because it was obtained through misrepresentation, breaching the fairness and voluntariness requirements. Therefore, Option B is correct.
Question 176
Roger has been charged with Aggravated Burglary, a category 3 offence. He is pleading not guilty and wants to elect a jury trial. When can he make an election?
A. He cannot elect a jury trial for a category 3 offence
B. At any time before the case management discussion
C. At the same time he enters his not guilty plea
Answer: C. At the same time he enters his not guilty plea
Reasoning
Jury Trial Election for Category 3 Offences:
Category 3 offences are serious offences where the maximum penalty is less than life imprisonment (e.g., aggravated burglary).
Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ), a defendant charged with a category 3 offence can elect a jury trial. This decision must be made at the time the defendant enters their not guilty plea.
Why Option C is Correct:
The defendant must make the election for a jury trial at the point of pleading not guilty. This ensures the case progresses in the appropriate trial jurisdiction, either judge-alone or jury trial.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. He cannot elect a jury trial for a category 3 offence:
This is incorrect; defendants facing category 3 charges have the right to elect a jury trial unless legislation specifically removes this option.
B. At any time before the case management discussion:
This is incorrect as the election for a jury trial must occur simultaneously with the not guilty plea, not at any point before the CMD.
Legal Context:
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Specifies when a defendant may elect a jury trial, particularly for category 3 offences.
The right to a jury trial is an important procedural safeguard for defendants facing serious charges.
Sources
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Section 74 – Election of jury trial for category 3 offences.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for charge management and trial jurisdiction decisions.
In Summary:
Roger can elect a jury trial for aggravated burglary (a category 3 offence) at the time he enters his not guilty plea, making Option C correct.
Question 177
If your file has been sent back because you have been tasked with completing remedial work before case management discussions, what is the latest time that the file needs to be with the PPS office?
A. 1 week after you are tasked with the work
B. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed
C. Five working days before the case management discussion
Answer: C. Five working days before the case management discussion
Reasoning
Case Management Deadlines:
The Case Management Memorandum (CMM) is a key document in the criminal justice process and must be completed and submitted well in advance of the case management discussion (CMD).
Police Prosecutions Service (PPS) requires sufficient time to review and prepare the case file after any remedial work has been completed.
Why Option C is Correct:
The New Zealand Police Manual and PPS guidelines specify that files requiring remedial work must be submitted at least five working days before the CMD.
This ensures there is adequate time for the PPS to evaluate the file, address any further issues, and file the necessary paperwork with the court.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. 1 week after you are tasked with the work:
While timely completion of remedial work is essential, this timeframe does not align with the requirement to submit the file five working days before the CMD.
B. The day the Case Management Memorandum is to be filed:
This would leave no time for the PPS to review the file or address potential deficiencies, which could jeopardize the CMD and case progression.
Legal Context:
The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 emphasizes efficient case management to minimize delays and ensure a fair trial process.
Proper preparation before CMDs is critical to achieving this goal.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on case management and CMD preparation.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (NZ): Provisions for case management.
PPS Procedural Guidelines: Timeframes for file submission and review before CMDs.
In Summary:
Files requiring remedial work must be submitted five working days before the case management discussion, as this allows sufficient time for PPS review and preparation, making Option C correct.
Question 178
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 Section 29 offences are defined as:
A. Sexual and/or physical, emotional violence offences against another person in a relationship as defined by the New Zealand Police Domestic Violence Policy
B. Serious assault resulting in injury, death, or a person being rendered incapable (including road accidents) where the victim is entitled to specialist support
C. Sexual or serious assault resulting in injury, death, being rendered incapable, or leading to the victim having fears for their safety or the safety of their family
Answer: C. Sexual or serious assault resulting in injury, death, being rendered incapable, or leading to the victim having fears for their safety or the safety of their family
Reasoning
Definition of Section 29 Offences:
Section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 identifies offences where victims are entitled to enhanced rights and support. These offences primarily include sexual offences or serious assaults that:
Cause injury, death, or incapacity.
Create fear for safety for the victim or their family.
Why Option C is Correct:
This option accurately reflects the provisions outlined in Section 29, which emphasizes serious harm (physical, emotional, or psychological) and the fear for safety resulting from sexual or serious assaults.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Sexual and/or physical, emotional violence offences against another person in a relationship as defined by the New Zealand Police Domestic Violence Policy:
While some domestic violence cases may qualify as Section 29 offences, this description is too narrow and does not encompass the full scope of offences covered by Section 29.
B. Serious assault resulting in injury, death, or a person being rendered incapable (including road accidents) where the victim is entitled to specialist support:
While partially accurate, it fails to address the sexual offences and fear for safety components required by Section 29.
Legal Context:
Section 29 provides additional protections and obligations for victims of specific offences, ensuring they are notified of case progress, court dates, and outcomes.
Police and support agencies must treat victims of Section 29 offences with special consideration, reflecting the seriousness of the harm caused.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Section 29 – Offences requiring enhanced victim support.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for victim support and management of Section 29 cases.
In Summary:
Section 29 offences include sexual or serious assaults that result in injury, death, incapacity, or fear for safety, making Option C the correct answer.
Question 179
Evidence is improperly obtained if it is:
A. Obtained from an unreliable witness
B. Obtained unfairly or unlawfully
C. Obtained from a suspect after arrest
Answer: B. Obtained unfairly or unlawfully
Reasoning
Definition of Improperly Obtained Evidence:
Evidence is considered improperly obtained if it has been obtained in a way that breaches legal or procedural fairness, such as through unlawful searches, breaches of rights, or coercion.
Section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZ) outlines the criteria for determining whether improperly obtained evidence should be excluded.
Why Option B is Correct:
Evidence obtained unlawfully (e.g., without proper warrants or authority) or unfairly (e.g., through misrepresentation, duress, or breaches of procedural rights) is deemed improperly obtained under the Evidence Act.
Such evidence may be excluded if its admission would be contrary to the interests of justice.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Obtained from an unreliable witness:
Evidence from an unreliable witness does not inherently make it “improperly obtained”; it may affect the weight or credibility of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
C. Obtained from a suspect after arrest:
Evidence obtained after arrest is not inherently improperly obtained unless it involves a breach of rights (e.g., failing to caution the suspect or denying legal counsel).
Legal Context:
Section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 considers whether evidence was improperly obtained and whether its admission would negatively affect justice.
The Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning provides guidelines for fair treatment during evidence collection.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Section 30 – Improperly obtained evidence.
Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning: Standards for lawful and fair evidence collection.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedural guidelines for evidence gathering.
In Summary:
Evidence is improperly obtained if it is obtained unfairly or unlawfully, as stated in Option B. This aligns with the provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 and legal standards for fairness and lawfulness in evidence collection.
Question 180
You are required to take some crime scene photographs as the Police photographer is unavailable. You are aware that the crime scene has been altered and several exhibits moved. You should:
A. Return exhibits to their original location and then take photographs
B. Photograph it in its new state
C. Only take photos of the specific exhibits as the crime scene itself is contaminated
Answer: B. Photograph it in its new state
Reasoning
Recording the Crime Scene as Found:
Even if the crime scene has been altered or contaminated, it is important to document it as it is found to provide an accurate record of its current state.
Returning exhibits to their original positions can further contaminate the scene or introduce errors.
Why Option B is Correct:
Photographing the scene in its current state ensures integrity in evidence collection and accurately reflects the situation when the photographer arrived.
These photographs can still be used in court with proper documentation explaining the altered state.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Return exhibits to their original location and then take photographs:
Returning exhibits to their original location risks further contamination and may not accurately reflect the state of the scene at the time of arrival. This is not best practice.
C. Only take photos of the specific exhibits as the crime scene itself is contaminated:
Limiting photographs to specific exhibits neglects the need to document the overall scene, which is crucial for context and understanding the case.
Legal and Procedural Context:
The New Zealand Police Manual emphasizes the importance of preserving the scene and accurately recording it as found, even if it has been altered.
Proper documentation, including notes about the scene’s condition and the alterations observed, is essential to maintain the integrity of the investigation.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for crime scene management and photography.
Best Practices in Forensic Photography: Guidelines for documenting altered or contaminated scenes.
Question 181
Who is responsible for filing formal statements?
A. The Prosecutor
B. The O/C case
C. The Registrar
Answer: B. The O/C case
Reasoning
Role of the O/C Case (Officer in Charge of the Case):
The O/C case is responsible for the management and progression of the investigation, including the preparation and filing of formal statements.
It is their responsibility to ensure that all necessary evidence, including witness statements, is properly collected, documented, and filed to support the prosecution.
Why Option B is Correct:
Filing formal statements is a key investigative task handled by the O/C case, as they are accountable for maintaining the integrity of the evidence and case file.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. The Prosecutor:
Prosecutors are responsible for presenting the case in court but rely on the O/C case to provide properly filed and documented statements.
C. The Registrar:
The Registrar’s role is primarily administrative, such as maintaining court records and schedules, not filing investigative statements.
Legal and Procedural Context:
According to the New Zealand Police Manual, the O/C case ensures all relevant materials, including statements, are filed within the required timeframes and adhere to disclosure obligations under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for case management and filing evidence.
Criminal Disclosure Act 2008: Requirements for disclosure of evidence.
In Summary:
The O/C case is responsible for filing formal statements, as outlined in Option B, ensuring the case file is complete and ready for prosecution.
Question 182
The Warm zone can be described as a place inside the scene cordon where:
A. The O/C scene briefs the examination team members
B. Forensic material is identified, retrieved, and examined
C. Exhibits are processed by a crime scene team member
Answer: C. Exhibits are processed by a crime scene team member
Reasoning
Definition of the Warm Zone:
The Warm Zone is part of the crime scene where activities such as processing exhibits, packaging evidence, and preparing forensic material for transport occur. It serves as a controlled area just inside the scene cordon but outside the Hot Zone (where the crime itself occurred).
Why Option C is Correct:
Processing exhibits, such as labeling, documenting, and packaging evidence, is a primary activity within the Warm Zone. This ensures evidence integrity while limiting contamination risks before evidence is removed from the scene.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. The O/C scene briefs the examination team members:
Briefing typically occurs outside the cordon or at a designated briefing area, not within the Warm Zone.
B. Forensic material is identified, retrieved, and examined:
These tasks are conducted in the Hot Zone, where the crime occurred, not in the Warm Zone.
Context in Crime Scene Management:
Crime scene management procedures divide the scene into zones (Hot, Warm, and Cold) to organize activities and prevent contamination.
The New Zealand Police Manual provides guidance on the specific roles and activities assigned to each zone.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Crime scene cordon management and evidence handling.
Forensic Best Practices: Guidelines for processing evidence and maintaining scene integrity.
In Summary:
The Warm Zone is where exhibits are processed by a crime scene team member, as stated in Option C, ensuring evidence integrity and minimizing contamination risks.
Question 183
The “Golden hour” concept refers to the time when:
A. Evidential material is more readily available at a crime scene
B. Forensic specialists examine and uplift scene exhibits
C. The offender is quickly located, questioned, and arrested
Answer: A. Evidential material is more readily available at a crime scene
Reasoning
Definition of the “Golden Hour”:
The “Golden Hour” refers to the critical initial period after a crime has occurred, during which evidence is most likely to be fresh, intact, and available for collection.
Actions taken during this time are crucial to preserving and securing both physical and testimonial evidence.
Why Option A is Correct:
During the Golden Hour, investigators can gather fresh forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and other critical information before it deteriorates or is contaminated.
Effective response during this period can significantly influence the outcome of the investigation.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. Forensic specialists examine and uplift scene exhibits:
While forensic specialists may be involved during the Golden Hour, their role is part of the overall process rather than the concept itself.
C. The offender is quickly located, questioned, and arrested:
Although apprehending the offender swiftly is desirable, this is not the primary focus of the Golden Hour concept, which emphasizes evidence preservation.
Importance in Crime Scene Management:
The New Zealand Police Manual and best practices in forensic investigations emphasize the importance of immediate actions, such as securing the scene, documenting evidence, and identifying witnesses, to capitalize on this crucial time.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for managing crime scenes and evidence collection.
Forensic Best Practices: Importance of early response and evidence preservation.
In Summary:
The “Golden Hour” refers to the time when evidential material is more readily available at a crime scene, as stated in Option A, making prompt and effective actions critical to the investigation.
Question 184
You are executing a search warrant and locate a cell phone referred to on the warrant. You observe the cell phone is turned on. What action should you take to uplift it as an exhibit?
A. Turn the phone off, uplift, and seal in an exhibit package
B. Leave it switched on, uplift, and contact HTCG for advice
C. Access the contents of the cell phone to identify the owner
Answer: B. Leave it switched on, uplift, and contact HTCG for advice
Reasoning
Handling Electronic Devices:
Cell phones often contain important digital evidence. Turning the phone off could disrupt ongoing processes, alter evidence, or cause loss of data. Therefore, it is essential to leave it switched on to preserve the current state of the device and its data.
Why Contact HTCG (High Tech Crime Group):
The HTCG provides expertise in handling and analyzing electronic devices. Contacting them ensures proper protocols are followed to secure and extract digital evidence without compromising its integrity.
Why Option B is Correct:
Leaving the phone on allows investigators to preserve data and avoid changes caused by turning it off or accessing it without proper authorization or expertise. HTCG can provide advice on the next steps, such as isolating the device from networks to prevent remote wiping.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Turn the phone off, uplift, and seal in an exhibit package:
Turning off the phone could alter or erase volatile data (e.g., open apps, running processes). This is not best practice when preserving digital evidence.
C. Access the contents of the cell phone to identify the owner:
Accessing the phone directly may violate legal and privacy rights unless explicitly authorized by the warrant. This could render the evidence inadmissible in court.
Legal and Procedural Context:
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and guidelines from the New Zealand Police Manual outline best practices for handling electronic evidence to preserve its admissibility in court.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines for handling electronic devices during searches.
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Legal requirements for search warrants and evidence handling.
HTCG Protocols: Best practices for managing digital evidence.
In Summary:
When locating a cell phone during a search warrant, you should leave it switched on, uplift, and contact HTCG for advice, as stated in Option B, to ensure the proper handling and preservation of digital evidence.
Question 185
You are about to interview a 15-year-old burglary suspect when his nominated person informs you the suspect has the mental age of a 5- or 6-year-old. In the given circumstances, which is the most appropriate interview model to use?
A. Minimise the risk of influencing the suspect by using the Free Recall model
B. Minimise any confusion for the suspect by using the Conversation Management model
C. Maximise the information collection by using the Direct Questioning model
A. Minimise the risk of influencing the suspect by using the Free Recall model
Question 186
A special consideration witness may be described as “vulnerable.” Vulnerable means:
A. Angry, suspicious, defenceless
B. Suspicious, inconsistent, stressed
C. Susceptible, defenceless, in a weak position
Answer: C. Susceptible, defenceless, in a weak position
Reasoning
Definition of Vulnerability:
A “vulnerable” witness refers to an individual who is susceptible, defenceless, or in a weak position, making them more likely to be influenced or harmed by the circumstances surrounding the case. This could include factors such as age, mental state, or personal circumstances that affect their ability to give testimony or understand the process.
Why Option C is Correct:
Susceptible, defenceless, and in a weak position are key characteristics of vulnerability. These traits reflect the need for extra consideration and support during the legal process, ensuring that the witness is not further harmed or coerced by the legal system or by the defendant.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Angry, suspicious, defenceless:
While some vulnerable witnesses may experience anger or suspicion, these traits do not fully encapsulate vulnerability. The definition of “vulnerable” is more focused on a person’s susceptibility and weakness in a given situation.
B. Suspicious, inconsistent, stressed:
While stress and inconsistency may occur in vulnerable witnesses, being “suspicious” does not align with the core definition of vulnerability. Vulnerability refers more to being at risk or in need of protection rather than being suspicious.
Legal and Procedural Context:
According to the New Zealand Police Manual and Victims’ Rights Act 2002, vulnerable witnesses require special consideration, which includes the provision of support persons, appropriate interview techniques, and protections during testimony.
Vulnerability can stem from mental illness, youth, age, or trauma, and these individuals often need additional care to ensure their rights and testimony are handled fairly.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Best practices for interviewing vulnerable witnesses.
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Definitions and protections for vulnerable individuals in the criminal justice system.
In Summary:
A vulnerable witness is susceptible, defenceless, and in a weak position, as described in Option C, and requires extra care and support during the investigative and judicial processes.
Question 187
A suspect declines the services of a lawyer but although he agrees to an interview, he says, “If you keep that video running, I won’t say anything.” What should you do?
A. Turn the video tape off and get his word that he will sign your written record of the interview
B. Continue with the video record and tell him that it is his choice whether or not to answer your questions
C. Explain the advantages of a visually recorded interview and say he has the option of preparing a written statement
C. Explain the advantages of a visually recorded interview and say he has the option of preparing a written statement
Question 188
In relation to cross-examination, which of the following answers is correct?
A. Where it is obvious that a person is lying, repetitive questions will elicit the truth
B. Police may use any means of questioning to elicit the truth from an offender
C. Questions aimed at establishing further facts from answers given are acceptable
Answer: C. Questions aimed at establishing further facts from answers given are acceptable
Reasoning
Cross-Examination Purpose:
The primary purpose of cross-examination in a trial is to test the credibility of a witness and challenge the consistency of their testimony. It is not to force the witness to admit guilt or to trap them into lies, but rather to clarify the facts and expose inconsistencies if they exist.
Why Option C is Correct:
Questions aimed at establishing further facts are an acceptable technique in cross-examination. These questions are designed to clarify, elaborate, or expand on previously given answers. They help ensure that the jury or judge has all the relevant information needed to assess the witness’s testimony and credibility.
Such questions are consistent with the principles of fairness in the courtroom, aiming to get to the truth through a careful and methodical questioning process.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Where it is obvious that a person is lying, repetitive questions will elicit the truth:
Repetitive questioning aimed at forcing a person to admit lying is not acceptable in a cross-examination. This approach can be seen as coercive and can undermine the fairness of the trial. The goal of cross-examination is to test the reliability of testimony, not to badger or harass the witness.
B. Police may use any means of questioning to elicit the truth from an offender:
This is incorrect, as the means of questioning must always comply with the principles of fairness, legality, and the protection of rights. For instance, police cannot use unlawful methods like coercion, threats, or promises in interviews or cross-examination. The admissibility of evidence gathered through improper questioning can be challenged in court.
Legal and Procedural Context:
The Evidence Act 2006 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ensure that cross-examination is conducted in a way that respects the rights of the witness and upholds the integrity of the legal process. Repetitive or coercive questioning is not permissible under these frameworks.
The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides further guidance on the conduct of interviews and cross-examination to ensure that only appropriate methods are used.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for questioning and cross-examination in criminal investigations.
Evidence Act 2006: Governs the admissibility of evidence and the conduct of questioning during trials.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Protects the rights of individuals during legal proceedings.
In Summary:
The correct answer is C. Questions aimed at establishing further facts from answers given are acceptable, as this method of questioning respects the principles of fairness and clarity in cross-examination.
Question 189
At this morning’s fall-in, you are told that Tim failed to appear at court on several charges under the Land Transport Act, and there is now a WTA in place. You are out patrolling when you see him drive past. You stop his car under s9. Which power of search would you use following your arrest of Tim?
A. S85 search for items that could harm any person or facilitate escape
B. S88 search for evidential material
C. S11 custody search for property and money
Answer: A. S85 search for items that could harm any person or facilitate escape
Reasoning
Context of the Arrest:
Tim has failed to appear in court on multiple charges under the Land Transport Act and now has a Warrant to Arrest (WTA) in place. This means that he has been lawfully arrested, and you now need to consider the appropriate search powers after arrest.
Why Option A is Correct:
Under Section 85 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a police officer can search a person when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of items that could harm any person or facilitate escape.
In the context of Tim’s arrest for failing to appear in court, you would likely suspect that he may have items on his person or in the vehicle that could aid in his escape or pose a risk to safety, such as weapons or tools to break out of custody.
Therefore, S85 would be the most appropriate power to use, as it allows for a search to ensure that Tim does not have anything that could assist him in escaping or harm others.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. S88 search for evidential material:
S88 allows for the search of a person, place, or vehicle for evidential material related to a specific offence. However, in this case, the WTA and the offence of failing to appear in court are not directly linked to evidential material, but rather to safety and potential escape risks. Therefore, S85 is a more appropriate power here, focusing on safety and the risk of escape rather than evidence collection.
C. S11 custody search for property and money:
S11 relates to custody searches of property or money when a person is being taken into custody. While this is relevant for searches after arrest, it focuses specifically on securing money or property. However, given the circumstances of the arrest and the potential risk of escape or harm, S85 is more applicable as it allows for a broader search for potentially dangerous items or those facilitating escape.
Legal Context:
Section 85 is part of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which empowers police officers to search a person who has been arrested, particularly when there is a risk to safety or the potential for escape.
Section 11 is used for securing personal property and money during custody, and Section 88 deals with searches for evidential material.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Provides powers for searching individuals during arrest or detention.
New Zealand Police Manual: Outlines the correct procedures for conducting searches during an arrest.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: Governs arrest and detention processes.
In Summary:
The correct answer is A. S85 search for items that could harm any person or facilitate escape, as it is the most appropriate power to ensure that Tim does not have items that could jeopardize the safety of others or aid in his escape.
Question 190
Tessa and Jean want Lisa’s MP3 player. Tessa is aware that Jean has a knife and is prepared to use it when they confront Lisa. Jean brandishes the knife and threatens to stab Lisa unless she gives her the MP3 player. Lisa is scared but doesn’t want to hand over her MP3 player, so gives Jean some money instead. Which of the following is correct in relation to the “being armed with an offensive weapon” ingredient of ‘aggravated robbery’?
A. Jean is liable for ‘aggravated robbery,’ and Tessa is a party to ‘aggravated robbery’ as she did not have possession of the knife
B. Only Jean is liable for ‘aggravated robbery’ as she was the person armed with a knife and had control over it
C. Tessa and Jean are both liable for ‘aggravated robbery’ as it can be said that they are both armed with a knife
C. Tessa and Jean are both liable for ‘aggravated robbery’ as it can be said that they are both armed with a knife
Question 191
56. When applying for a SW, you must provide details of any other applications for the target of the warrant that have been made during the previous: Intranet: Search Warrant
3 months
6 months
1 month
Answer: 3 months
Reasoning
When applying for a search warrant (SW), you are required to provide details of any previous applications for the same target (i.e., the individual, place, or object to be searched) made during the last 3 months. This requirement ensures transparency and helps to avoid repetitive or unnecessary applications, ensuring that the application is legitimate.
This is in line with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (Section 65), which includes guidelines on the disclosure of past search warrant applications. If the same target has been the subject of other applications, this should be disclosed as part of your application.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 65
In Summary:
The correct answer is 3 months, as the requirement for disclosing previous applications for the target of the warrant applies to the last 3 months.
Question 192
Ensuring that the continuity of the ‘Chain of evidence’ is maintained refers to the specific duties of the:
A. ESR scene examiner
B. Exhibit officer
C. O/C investigation
Answer: B. Exhibit officer
Reasoning:
The continuity of the “chain of evidence” refers to the proper handling, documentation, and safeguarding of evidence from the moment it is collected to the time it is presented in court. The exhibit officer is responsible for ensuring this chain is maintained. They are tasked with ensuring that evidence is properly cataloged, stored, and documented, preventing contamination, loss, or mishandling.
Question 193
Representation refers to the behavior of the interviewer who:
A. Promises a favour in return for a requested action
B. Does not advise the suspect of their right to a lawyer
C. Allows the suspect to have a support person in the interview
Answer: A. Promises a favour in return for a requested action
Reasoning:
In the context of investigative interviewing, representation refers to unethical behavior where the interviewer promises a benefit or favor to a suspect in exchange for cooperation or an action, which is prohibited as it may lead to an unreliable or coerced confession. This goes against the principles of fairness in the interview process.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Interviewing Guidelines
Question 194
A suspect elects his right to silence at interview. You give the allegations and prepare a statement accordingly. He refuses to sign it. Which of the following actions would you take?
A. Record his refusal to sign the interview record and close the interview
B. Say that he is refusing the opportunity to explain his version of events
C. End interview and request a senior officer sign the interview record
Answer: A. Record his refusal to sign the interview record and close the interview
Reasoning:
If a suspect elects to remain silent and refuses to sign an interview record, the correct procedure is to record his refusal to sign the interview record and close the interview. This ensures that the suspect’s right to silence is respected, and the refusal is properly documented. Forcing the suspect to sign or pressuring them to explain would violate their rights.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Interviewing Guidelines
Question 195
Which of the following statements best describes an investigative mindset?
A. The knowledge and skills that investigators develop over time mostly through on-the-job learning with a good mentor
B. A state of mind or attitude which is demonstrated through investigative knowledge and skills and continually asking “so what?”
C. A principled approach to the way investigators examine material and make appropriate and reasonable decisions
C. A principled approach to the way investigators examine material and make appropriate and reasonable decisions
Question 196:
After charging a shoplifter with theft and lodging her in the cells, you receive information leading you to suspect her of further thefts. According to Chief Justice Practice Note Guideline 2 you should:
A. Interview her again on video, caution again and question her about the new allegations
B. Reconvene the interview, question her further about all the stolen items
C. Reconvene the interview, caution her and ask questions relating to both offences
Answer: A. Interview her again on video, caution again and question her about the new allegations
Reasoning:
According to the Chief Justice Practice Note Guideline 2, when new allegations arise after a suspect has been charged and is in custody, the correct procedure is to re-interview the suspect. This interview should be video recorded, and the suspect should be cautioned again before questioning them about the new allegations. This ensures the integrity of the process and respects the suspect’s rights.
Sources:
Chief Justice Practice Note Guidelines
Question 197
You are dealing with a suspect who has caused an injury to a person. The term “to injure” means to cause:
A. Actual bodily harm to a person
B. Any type of injury to a person
C. Really serious harm to a person
A. Actual bodily harm to a person
Question 198
The purpose of an initial reconnaissance by the first on the scene officers at a serious crime scene is to:
A. Inform COMMs who is required for the scene examination
B. Generate a valid theory about the offender’s location
C. Survey the scene to establish the action required to secure
Answer: C. Survey the scene to establish the action required to secure
Reasoning:
The primary purpose of an initial reconnaissance by the first officers on the scene is to assess the situation and determine the necessary actions to secure the scene. This involves evaluating the immediate risks, such as ensuring the safety of any individuals involved, preventing contamination of evidence, and establishing an appropriate perimeter for the crime scene.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Scene Examination Guidelines, Crime Scene Management Procedures
Question 199
The Issuing Officer has authorised your SW for a car used in a drive-by shooting. An informant tells you that the car is now parked in the driveway of a suburban house. You drive by the house and see that the car is there. The SW allows you to:
A. Enter the place and search it under the SW
B. Enter the place to execute the SW on the car
C. Enter the place to search the car and the place
Answer: B. Enter the place to execute the SW on the car
Reasoning:
A search warrant (SW) for a car specifically authorizes the police to search that vehicle, not necessarily the entire property where the car is located. While the car is the target of the warrant, the police are only allowed to enter the place (in this case, the suburban house) to execute the warrant on the car. If the warrant doesn’t explicitly cover the house or other areas of the property, the search is limited to the car.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 65
Question 200
If no Police Bail conditions are imposed, the date of the defendant’s first appearance must be which of the following?
A. No more than 7 consecutive days from the date bail was granted
B. No more than 14 days from the date bail was granted
C. No more than 10 working days from the date bail was granted
The correct answer is B. No more than 14 days from the date bail was granted (with bail conditions is 7 days).
Reasoning:
Under New Zealand law, when no bail conditions are imposed, the defendant’s first appearance in court must occur within 14 days from the date that bail is granted. This ensures that the defendant is not left in limbo for too long while awaiting their first court appearance.
Explanation of the options:
A. No more than 7 consecutive days from the date bail was granted: This is incorrect because this timeframe applies when bail conditions are imposed. If bail conditions are in place, the first appearance should occur within 7 days.
B. No more than 14 days from the date bail was granted (with bail conditions is 7 days): This is the correct answer. When no bail conditions are imposed, the first appearance must be within 14 days.
C. No more than 10 working days from the date bail was granted: This is incorrect. The Bail Act 2000 does not specify 10 working days for the first appearance, it is 14 days when no conditions are imposed.
Relevant Legal Source:
Bail Act 2000 (Section 10) establishes the guidelines for bail appearances and timeframes for the first appearance, making it clear that if no conditions are applied, the defendant’s first appearance must occur no later than 14 days after the granting of bail.
Question 201:
Being on the notification register (VNR) means the victim will be notified:
A. By the agency where the offender is being held of any changes to the offender’s circumstances and custody conditions
B. By the agency where the offender is held of any information concerning changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape or death
C. By Police of any changes to the defendant’s or offender’s circumstances (eg court appearance) and custody conditions
The correct answer is B. By the agency where the offender is held of any information concerning changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape or death.
Reasoning:
Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, when a victim is on the Victim Notification Register (VNR), they are entitled to be notified by the agency where the offender is held about changes in the offender’s status that might affect the victim. This includes information about:
Changes to the offender’s bail
Release
Parole
Escape
Death
This provision helps ensure the victim is aware of significant developments related to the offender that could impact their safety or well-being.
Explanation of the other options:
A. By the agency where the offender is being held of any changes to the offender’s circumstances and custody conditions: While this is partly correct, it does not cover the full scope of notifications required under the VNR, particularly in relation to changes such as parole, escape, or death.
C. By Police of any changes to the defendant’s or offender’s circumstances (e.g., court appearance) and custody conditions: While the Police may notify victims in certain cases, the VNR primarily requires that notifications about the offender’s custody and status (such as bail, release, parole, escape, and death) come from the agency where the offender is being held, not necessarily the Police.
Relevant Legal Source:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (Section 28) provides the legal framework for notifying victims about any changes related to the offender’s status, including the aspects listed in option B.
Question 202
The O/C initial action party could decide to immediately uplift an item from a scene of a serious crime when the item:
A. Is illegal and can be confiscated immediately without warrant.
B. Will distress the victim’s family should they see it.
C. Cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate.
Question 202:
The O/C initial action party could decide to immediately uplift an item from a scene of a serious crime when the item:
A. Is illegal and can be confiscated immediately without warrant.
B. Will distress the victim’s family should they see it.
C. Cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate.
The correct answer is C. Cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate.
Reasoning:
When a critical item is at risk of deterioration (e.g., due to exposure to weather or environmental factors), it is essential to uplift the item immediately to preserve its integrity as evidence. The urgency to protect the item from deterioration outweighs the usual protocols or waiting for a search warrant. This action ensures that the evidence remains viable for later use in the investigation and prosecution.
Explanation of incorrect answers:
A. Is illegal and can be confiscated immediately without warrant: While some items may indeed be illegal and subject to immediate confiscation, this does not provide a reason for immediate uplift. The key factor is whether the item is in imminent danger of deterioration.
B. Will distress the victim’s family should they see it: While it may be sensitive, the decision to uplift an item is primarily based on the risk of evidence deterioration, not the potential distress it may cause to the victim’s family.
Let me know if you’d like more information!
Question 203
The term “grievous bodily harm” in relation to an offence of ‘aggravated robbery’ means:
A. Violence causing bodily injury.
B. Really serious harm.
C. Actual physical injury.
Question 203:
The term “grievous bodily harm” in relation to an offence of ‘aggravated robbery’ means:
A. Violence causing bodily injury.
B. Really serious harm.
C. Actual physical injury.
The correct answer is B. Really serious harm.
Reasoning:
“Grievous bodily harm” refers to harm that is serious in nature, typically involving significant injury or damage that affects the victim’s health or well-being. In the context of an aggravated robbery, the level of harm must be more than just bodily injury; it must involve significant or “really serious” harm, which might include serious wounds, fractures, or life-threatening injuries.
Explanation of incorrect answers:
A. Violence causing bodily injury: Bodily injury can refer to any injury caused by violence, but it doesn’t meet the threshold for “grievous” harm, which requires something far more severe.
C. Actual physical injury: While physical injury is part of the harm caused, the term “grievous bodily harm” specifically refers to very serious harm, not just any physical injury.
Let me know if you’d like further clarification!
Question 204
Section 103 of the Evidence Act 2006 recognises the rights of a special consideration witness by:
A. Allowing them to have a support person in court to assist them to give their evidence.
B. Providing opportunity for their evidence in chief to be given to the court in an alternative way.
C. Protecting them from cross-examination by the defence who can question any witness.
Question 204:
Section 103 of the Evidence Act 2006 recognises the rights of a special consideration witness by:
A. Allowing them to have a support person in court to assist them to give their evidence.
B. Providing opportunity for their evidence in chief to be given to the court in an alternative way.
C. Protecting them from cross-examination by the defence who can question any witness.
The correct answer is B. Providing opportunity for their evidence in chief to be given to the court in an alternative way.
Reasoning:
Section 103 of the Evidence Act 2006 recognises special consideration witnesses (such as vulnerable witnesses) and allows their evidence to be given in an alternative manner to avoid distress or harm. This might include giving evidence via video link, pre-recording evidence, or using other means designed to support the witness’s needs.
Explanation of incorrect answers:
A. Allowing them to have a support person in court to assist them to give their evidence: While having a support person is important and may be allowed, the specific provision under Section 103 focuses more on the ability to provide evidence in alternative ways rather than simply having a support person.
C. Protecting them from cross-examination by the defence who can question any witness: Section 103 does not protect a special consideration witness from cross-examination by the defence; instead, it focuses on allowing alternative methods for giving evidence. Cross-examination is still a part of the trial process.
Let me know if you’d like further clarification!
Question 205
You are en route to the scene of an armed robbery where it is believed that an air rifle has been used. You locate a person you believe to be the offender a couple of blocks from the scene. Can you lawfully stop and search him under section 18 of the S&S Act 2012?
A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it.
B. Yes, but you should obtain his consent first.
C. No, suspicion is insufficient. You must have ‘reasonable ground to believe’ before conducting a search.
Question 205:
You are en route to the scene of an armed robbery where it is believed that an air rifle has been used. You locate a person you believe to be the offender a couple of blocks from the scene. Can you lawfully stop and search him under section 18 of the S&S Act 2012?
A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it.
B. Yes, but you should obtain his consent first.
C. No, suspicion is insufficient. You must have ‘reasonable ground to believe’ before conducting a search.
The correct answer is A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it.
Reasoning:
Under Section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (S&S Act 2012), you are allowed to stop and search a person when you have “reasonable grounds to suspect” that they may be in possession of an item related to the crime. In this case, you suspect the person may have an air rifle related to the armed robbery, and you have a reasonable basis for this suspicion (based on proximity to the scene and the nature of the offence). Therefore, you are permitted to conduct a search without needing consent.
Explanation of incorrect answers:
B. Yes, but you should obtain his consent first: Consent is not required in this situation because Section 18 allows for a search based on reasonable suspicion, not the need for consent.
C. No, suspicion is insufficient. You must have ‘reasonable ground to believe’ before conducting a search: The law requires reasonable grounds to suspect rather than “reasonable grounds to believe.” The terminology differs, and suspicion alone is sufficient under Section 18.
Let me know if you need further clarification!
Question 206
Care must be taken when placing stepping plates in the Hot zone because they:
A. Are heavy and not easy to manoeuvre.
B. May conceal or change evidence in the scene.
C. Can only be placed on a nonslip surface.
Question 206:
Care must be taken when placing stepping plates in the Hot zone because they:
A. Are heavy and not easy to manoeuvre.
B. May conceal or change evidence in the scene.
C. Can only be placed on a nonslip surface.
The correct answer is B. May conceal or change evidence in the scene.
Reasoning:
In a crime scene, especially within the Hot zone, the priority is to preserve the integrity of the evidence. Stepping plates can potentially conceal evidence or even alter it if not carefully placed. Since the Hot zone contains the most critical areas of the scene, using stepping plates can unintentionally disturb or hide important evidence if they are not placed correctly or if they cause any disturbance.
Explanation of incorrect answers:
A. Are heavy and not easy to manoeuvre: While stepping plates may be heavy, the primary concern is not their weight but how they might affect the evidence by covering or disturbing it.
C. Can only be placed on a nonslip surface: While this is a general safety concern for any equipment used in the Hot zone, the main concern in this case is the risk of concealing or changing evidence rather than the physical properties of the plates.
Let me know if you’d like more information!
Question 207
What are the aims of case management discussions?
A. To fill in the PPS file analysis form.
B. To determine what type and length of sentence the defendant will plead guilty to, and resolve any issues before trial.
C. To determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial.
Question 207:
What are the aims of case management discussions?
A. To fill in the PPS file analysis form.
B. To determine what type and length of sentence the defendant will plead guilty to, and resolve any issues before trial.
C. To determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial.
The correct answer is C. To determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial.
Reasoning:
Case management discussions are an important part of the criminal justice process and are designed to streamline the trial preparation process. The aim is to review the case, ensure all necessary steps have been taken, and resolve any outstanding issues that could affect the progression to trial. These discussions help ensure that the case is ready to proceed, or alternatively, that any issues preventing it from moving forward are addressed (e.g., gathering further evidence, pretrial motions, etc.).
Explanation of incorrect answers:
A. To fill in the PPS file analysis form: While file analysis is a part of the process, it is not the primary aim of case management discussions. The focus is more on reviewing the readiness of the case for trial and managing issues that arise before proceeding.
B. To determine what type and length of sentence the defendant will plead guilty to, and resolve any issues before trial: This is not the primary focus of case management discussions. Sentencing discussions usually occur after a plea has been entered, and case management discussions focus more on procedural aspects of the case leading up to trial.
Let me know if you need more details!
Question 208
Are pre-trial admissibility hearings available before both Judge-alone and jury trials?
A. Pre-trial hearings are only for jury trials.
B. Yes.
C. No.
No - only for JAT
Question 209
COMMS will assist with serious scene coordination by contacting forensic specialists required. As a general rule, which forensic specialist will be called first to attend the scene?
A. A photographer.
B. An ESR scientist.
C. A SOCO or Fingerprint expert.
The correct answer is A. A photographer.
Reasoning:
In serious crime scene investigations, the first forensic specialist typically called to the scene is a photographer. The photographer is responsible for documenting the scene as soon as possible, capturing critical images that will preserve the condition of the scene and any evidence before it is disturbed or altered. This photographic documentation is crucial for later analysis, trial evidence, and to maintain the chain of custody of the scene.
Explanation of incorrect answers:
B. An ESR scientist: While ESR scientists are critical for certain forensic analysis, such as biological testing or evidence analysis, they typically arrive after the initial photographic documentation has been completed. They are not usually the first to attend the scene.
C. A SOCO or Fingerprint expert: While specialists like SOCOs and fingerprint experts are essential for processing the scene for specific evidence types, they are usually called after the initial documentation (photography) is done to ensure the preservation of evidence.
If you need more detail on any of these answers, feel free to ask!
Question 210
After being evicted from a party, Steve drives his car into a crowd gathered outside of the address, injuring three people. In order to prove ‘recklessness’ under section 189(2) Crimes Act 1961, you must prove that Steve:
A. Took a risk while not aware of the probable consequences.
B. Consciously and deliberately took a reasonable risk.
C. Consciously and deliberately took an unjustified risk.
The correct answer is C. Consciously and deliberately took an unjustified risk.
Reasoning:
Under section 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961, recklessness involves a person consciously disregarding a substantial risk that their actions could cause harm to others. In this case, to prove recklessness, you must show that Steve consciously and deliberately took an unjustified risk by driving his car into a crowd. This indicates that he was aware of the risk his actions posed but chose to proceed anyway without a legitimate reason, leading to the injuries of three people.
Explanation of incorrect answers:
A. Took a risk while not aware of the probable consequences: This answer suggests negligence rather than recklessness. For recklessness, the individual must be aware of the risk, not unaware of the consequences.
B. Consciously and deliberately took a reasonable risk: A “reasonable risk” would not qualify as reckless behavior. Recklessness requires the risk to be unjustified—not reasonable, implying that the risk was unreasonable given the circumstances.
If you’d like more information on this or any other questions, feel free to ask!
Question 211
Being on the notification register (VNR) means the victim will be notified:
A. By the agency where the offender is being held of any changes to the offender’s circumstances and custody conditions.
B. By the agency where the offender is held of any information concerning changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape, or death.
C. By Police of any changes to the defendant’s or offender’s circumstances (e.g., court appearance) and custody conditions.
The correct answer is:
B. By the agency where the offender is held of any information concerning changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape, or death.
Reasoning: Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, victims who are on the Victim Notification Register (VNR) are entitled to be informed by the agency where the offender is held of any changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape, or death. This ensures that victims are kept informed of any significant developments that could affect their safety or security.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. By the agency where the offender is being held of any changes to the offender’s circumstances and custody conditions.
This answer is partially correct but lacks specificity. While it is true that the VNR provides victims with information about custody conditions, the focus is on more specific events like bail, release, parole, escape, or death, which are critical changes that might directly affect the victim.
C. By Police of any changes to the defendant’s or offender’s circumstances (e.g., court appearance) and custody conditions.
This is incorrect because the Police are not responsible for notifying the victim of changes to the offender’s bail, release, parole, escape, or death. These notifications are specifically handled by the agency where the offender is being held (e.g., the Department of Corrections), not by the Police. Additionally, notifications related to court appearances are generally not covered under the VNR in the same way as changes to custody conditions or release.
Conclusion:
The correct response is B because it directly aligns with the legal framework established under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and the specific role of the agency holding the offender.
Question 212
The O/C initial action party could decide to immediately uplift an item from a scene of a serious crime when the item:
A. Is illegal and can be confiscated immediately without warrant.
B. Will distress the victim’s family should they see it.
C. Cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate.
The correct answer is:
C. Cannot be protected from the elements and will deteriorate.
Reasoning: When dealing with a crime scene, it is essential to preserve evidence that could deteriorate or be destroyed. If an item cannot be properly protected from the elements (such as rain, wind, or temperature changes), the officer in charge (O/C) of the initial action may decide to immediately uplift (seize) the item to preserve its integrity for future examination. This is particularly important when dealing with evidence that may not be secured in time to prevent degradation, such as biological or perishable materials.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Is illegal and can be confiscated immediately without warrant.
While illegal items can often be seized without a warrant, this option is not directly relevant to the circumstances where an item may be uplifted for preservation. The need to seize an item from a crime scene is based on its ability to deteriorate or become contaminated, not merely because it is illegal. The answer focuses too narrowly on the legality of the item, not the preservation of evidence.
B. Will distress the victim’s family should they see it.
This answer is not correct because decisions about evidence collection and preservation should be based on the needs of the investigation and not emotional considerations like distress to the victim’s family. While it is important to consider the impact on victims and their families, the primary focus should always be on the integrity and preservation of the evidence, particularly if the evidence is at risk of deterioration.
Conclusion:
The correct answer is C, as it directly addresses the critical need to preserve evidence that may be at risk of damage or destruction, which is paramount in the early stages of a crime scene investigation.
Question 213
The term “grievous bodily harm” in relation to an offence of ‘aggravated robbery’ means:
A. Violence causing bodily injury.
B. Really serious harm.
C. Actual physical injury.
B. Really serious harm.
Reasoning: In the context of an offence like ‘aggravated robbery,’ “grievous bodily harm” refers to harm that is very serious in nature. The term “grievous” typically describes injuries that cause severe pain, long-term damage, or life-threatening situations. Under the Crimes Act 1961, grievous bodily harm is specifically used to categorize serious injuries that are more than just minor harm or injury.
This definition focuses on the severity of the injury and its long-term effects. In cases of aggravated robbery, the offence is upgraded to aggravated robbery if the victim suffers grievous bodily harm due to the violence committed during the robbery.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Violence causing bodily injury.
This answer is too broad and vague. While bodily injury can refer to various levels of harm, “grievous bodily harm” specifically means really serious harm. The term “bodily injury” alone could refer to a wide range of injuries, from minor to serious, and does not meet the legal definition of “grievous” harm required for aggravated robbery.
C. Actual physical injury.
This answer is also too broad. “Actual physical injury” could apply to all types of injuries, whether minor or severe. In the legal context of aggravated robbery, grievous bodily harm involves injuries that are far beyond mere physical injury; they involve serious harm or long-lasting consequences, which this answer does not adequately describe.
Conclusion: The correct answer is B. Really serious harm, which accurately reflects the definition of “grievous bodily harm” in relation to an offence like aggravated robbery.
Question 214
Section 103 of the Evidence Act 2006 recognises the rights of a special consideration witness by:
A. Allowing them to have a support person in court to assist them to give their evidence.
B. Providing opportunity for their evidence in chief to be given to the court in an alternative way.
C. Protecting them from cross-examination by the defence who can question any witness.
The correct answer is:
B. Providing opportunity for their evidence in chief to be given to the court in an alternative way.
Reasoning: Section 103 of the Evidence Act 2006 focuses on special consideration for vulnerable witnesses, including those who might experience difficulty during testimony due to factors like age, mental impairment, or trauma. The law allows for these witnesses to give their evidence in chief (the initial part of their testimony) in a manner that minimizes distress and trauma. This may include giving evidence via video recording or through a support person, or through other means like a screen or closed-circuit television to avoid direct confrontation with the accused.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Allowing them to have a support person in court to assist them to give their evidence.
While this is a reasonable approach in many cases, Section 103 specifically focuses on the manner in which vulnerable witnesses can provide their evidence rather than just the presence of a support person. Though a support person may be allowed, Section 103 is more about how their evidence is taken and given to reduce distress or harm.
C. Protecting them from cross-examination by the defence who can question any witness.
This is not an absolute right under Section 103. While the law offers certain protections to vulnerable witnesses, it does not automatically exclude them from cross-examination. The court may allow for a vulnerable witness to be cross-examined, but this section specifically addresses how their evidence in chief can be provided more safely, not about cross-examination protections.
Conclusion: The correct answer is B. Providing opportunity for their evidence in chief to be given to the court in an alternative way, as this reflects the essence of Section 103 in protecting the witness from further trauma while ensuring their testimony is heard in a way that minimizes distress.
Question 215
You are en route to the scene of an armed robbery where it is believed that an air rifle has been used. You locate a person you believe to be the offender a couple of blocks from the scene. Can you lawfully stop and search him under section 18 of the S&S Act 2012?
A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it.
B. Yes, but you should obtain his consent first.
C. No, suspicion is insufficient. You must have ‘reasonable ground to believe’ before conducting a search.
A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it.
Reasoning: Under Section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, an officer can stop and search a person when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual is in possession of an item that is connected to an offence, such as the weapon involved in the armed robbery in this case (the air rifle). The law allows searches based on reasonable suspicion, which is a lower threshold than “reasonable belief” required in other sections of the law. If there is reasonable suspicion that the person may be in possession of the air rifle, the officer is justified in conducting the search.
Why the other answers are not correct:
B. Yes, but you should obtain his consent first.
This is not correct because under Section 18, reasonable grounds to suspect are sufficient to lawfully stop and search someone. Consent is not required unless it is part of the process of the search. However, officers should inform the person of their legal right to refuse the search in some situations, but it is not a requirement in this case.
C. No, suspicion is insufficient. You must have ‘reasonable ground to believe’ before conducting a search.
This is incorrect because Section 18 allows a search based on reasonable suspicion, not the higher standard of “reasonable belief.” The law distinguishes between suspicion (a lower threshold) and belief (a higher standard), and in this case, the officer only needs reasonable grounds to suspect that the person may be in possession of the weapon, not a higher degree of certainty.
Conclusion: The correct answer is A. Yes, providing you have reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of it, as this aligns with the requirements of Section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
Question 216
Care must be taken when placing stepping plates in the Hot zone because they:
A. Are heavy and not easy to manoeuvre.
B. May conceal or change evidence in the scene.
C. Can only be placed on a nonslip surface.
B. May conceal or change evidence in the scene.
Reasoning: In a crime scene, especially in the Hot zone (the area most directly related to the investigation and evidence collection), it is crucial to avoid actions that might alter or damage the evidence. Stepping plates or other materials used to protect the scene must not cover or hide any potential evidence. If stepping plates are placed improperly, they can inadvertently conceal evidence or even change the positioning of evidence, thereby affecting its integrity.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Are heavy and not easy to manoeuvre.
While it’s true that stepping plates might be difficult to move, the key concern in the Hot zone is their potential to conceal or alter evidence rather than their weight or maneuverability. The focus should be on their impact on evidence, not the difficulty in moving them.
C. Can only be placed on a nonslip surface.
This is generally true for safety reasons, but in the context of the Hot zone, the primary concern is not whether the plates are nonslip, but rather how their placement might affect the evidence. Ensuring that evidence is not concealed or altered by stepping plates takes precedence over the surface on which they are placed.
Conclusion: The most important factor when placing stepping plates in the Hot zone is that they must not conceal or alter evidence. Therefore, the correct answer is B. May conceal or change evidence in the scene.
Question 217
What are the aims of case management discussions?
A. To fill in the PPS file analysis form.
B. To determine what type and length of sentence the defendant will plead guilty to, and resolve any issues before trial.
C. To determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial.
C. To determine whether the case will proceed to trial and make arrangements to resolve any issues before trial.
Reasoning: Case management discussions are designed to assess whether the case is ready for trial and to resolve any outstanding issues before the trial process begins. These discussions are not focused on sentencing but rather on ensuring that the case is prepared for court. This could involve determining if further evidence is needed, addressing procedural issues, or deciding if a plea deal is appropriate. The goal is to streamline the case and avoid unnecessary delays once the trial begins.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. To fill in the PPS file analysis form.
While the PPS file analysis form is an important document in preparing a case, the main aim of case management discussions is not to complete forms but to ensure that the case is properly prepared for trial. Filing paperwork is part of the process, but not the central purpose of the discussions.
B. To determine what type and length of sentence the defendant will plead guilty to, and resolve any issues before trial.
Determining the sentence and plea is typically done after the defendant has pleaded guilty, not during case management discussions. These discussions are held before trial and are focused on whether the case should go to trial, what preparations are needed, and how any procedural or evidence issues can be resolved. Sentencing usually comes after the trial or after a plea has been entered.
Conclusion: The primary purpose of case management discussions is to determine whether the case will proceed to trial and to make arrangements to resolve any issues beforehand. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Question 218
Are pre-trial admissibility hearings available before both Judge-alone and jury trials?
A. Pre-trial hearings are only for jury trials.
B. Yes.
C. No.
C. S78 Crimminal Procedures Act 2011
Court may order pre-trial admissibility hearing if trial to be Judge-alone trial
(1)
This section applies if—
(a)
the prosecutor or the defendant wishes to adduce any particular evidence at a Judge-alone trial; and
(b)
he or she believes that the admissibility of that evidence may be challenged.
Question 219
COMMS will assist with serious scene coordination by contacting forensic specialists required. As a general rule, which forensic specialist will be called first to attend the scene?
A. A photographer.
B. An ESR scientist.
C. A SOCO or Fingerprint expert.
The correct answer is:
A. A photographer.
Reasoning:
In the context of a serious crime scene, the first forensic specialist generally called to the scene is a photographer. The photographer’s role is to document the scene as it was found, preserving the integrity of the scene in its untouched state. This is crucial for ensuring that there is a clear record of the scene’s condition for evidence collection and future court proceedings. The photographer is typically the first person to enter and take comprehensive photographs of the crime scene.
After this initial step, other specialists, such as ESR scientists and SOCO (Scene of Crime Officers) or Fingerprint experts, may be called to assist with specific forensic tasks like evidence collection, DNA analysis, or fingerprint identification.
Why it’s not the other answers:
B. An ESR scientist: While ESR (Environmental Science and Research) scientists play a vital role in analyzing forensic evidence, they are typically not the first called to a crime scene. Their role comes after the scene is photographed and evidence is initially documented.
C. A SOCO or Fingerprint expert: Scene of Crime Officers (SOCO) and fingerprint experts play an essential role in collecting physical evidence, but they are typically called after the photographer has done their job of documenting the scene visually.
Therefore, the correct answer is A. A photographer.
Question 220
After being evicted from a party, Steve drives his car into a crowd gathered outside of the address, injuring three people. In order to prove ‘recklessness’ under section 189(2) Crimes Act 1961, you must prove that Steve:
A. Took a risk while not aware of the probable consequences.
B. Consciously and deliberately took a reasonable risk.
C. Consciously and deliberately took an unjustified risk.
C. Consciously and deliberately took an unjustified risk.
Reasoning:
Section 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 defines the offence of “recklessness” in relation to causing harm. To prove recklessness, the prosecution must show that the defendant, in this case, Steve, consciously and deliberately took an unjustified risk of causing harm. The key elements are the awareness of the risk and the decision to take that risk despite knowing the possible consequences.
In Steve’s case, driving his car into a crowd in a manner that could cause injury shows that he was aware of the potential harm but chose to proceed with the action anyway, even though that action was unjustified and posed a clear danger to others.
Why it’s not the other answers:
A. Took a risk while not aware of the probable consequences: This describes negligence, not recklessness. In a recklessness charge, the individual must be aware of the consequences but chooses to take the risk anyway.
B. Consciously and deliberately took a reasonable risk: If Steve had taken a reasonable risk, it would not be considered reckless. A “reasonable risk” is not a reckless act because it doesn’t involve disregard for the safety of others.
Thus, C is the correct answer because it accurately captures the legal standard for recklessness as set out in Section 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
Question 221
When should an investigator visually record a witness interview?
A. Whenever the witness is identified as a special consideration witness.
B. When the interview is needed for completeness and accuracy of evidence (especially for investigatively important witnesses).
C. Whenever an interviewing suite and required resources are available.
B. When the interview is needed for completeness and accuracy of evidence (especially for investigatively important witnesses).
Reasoning:
The primary purpose of visually recording a witness interview is to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the evidence provided. Visual recordings serve as an accurate, objective record of the interview process and can be crucial in investigating and prosecuting cases, especially where the witness is critical to the case or their testimony might be disputed later.
A visual record allows for:
Preservation of the witness’s original testimony.
Prevention of any potential issues with witness reliability or credibility during cross-examination.
Ensuring transparency in the interview process, which may help to protect the integrity of the investigation.
While special consideration witnesses (such as those with vulnerabilities) often have an interview recorded, it’s not exclusive to them. The recording is a good practice whenever it’s essential to preserve the accuracy of the information provided by a witness, particularly in cases where the witness’s testimony is crucial to the investigation or prosecution.
Why not the other options?
A. Whenever the witness is identified as a special consideration witness. While it’s true that special consideration witnesses (such as vulnerable individuals) may require their interviews to be visually recorded, the requirement for a visual record is not solely based on the witness’s status. The need for a visual recording can arise from the need for accuracy and completeness in the evidence, which applies to all witness interviews, not just those with special considerations.
C. Whenever an interviewing suite and required resources are available. This option is too broad and is not a determining factor for when to record a witness interview. The decision to visually record an interview should be based on the need for accuracy, completeness, and the significance of the testimony, rather than simply the availability of resources. While resources may play a role, they do not dictate the necessity of visual recording.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Interviewing Guidelines: These guidelines emphasize the importance of visually recording interviews when necessary for accuracy and when the witness’s testimony is significant to the case.
Evidence Act 2006: This Act establishes the principles of admissibility of evidence and indicates the importance of recording evidence, particularly when there might be issues with its credibility.
In conclusion, B is the best option as it aligns with the core purpose of visual recording in investigations: to ensure the completeness and accuracy of witness testimony, particularly when the witness’s statement is significant to the case.
Question 222
An authorised SW is usually valid for:
A. 30 days
B. 14 days.
C. 7 days.
B. 14 days.
Reasoning:
According to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a search warrant (SW) is typically valid for 14 days from the date it is issued unless otherwise specified by the issuing officer. This 14-day validity period is common practice for standard search warrants unless there are specific justifications for a longer period, which would require clear reasoning and authorization from the issuing officer.
Why not the other options?
A. 30 days (Can be 30 days if justified). While it is true that a search warrant can be valid for up to 30 days if justified and specified by the issuing officer, 14 days is the usual default period. The period of 30 days would require special justification and is not the standard or typical duration for most search warrants.
C. 7 days. A 7-day validity period is not typical for an authorized search warrant under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Generally, a search warrant would be valid for 14 days, unless specific circumstances warrant a shorter period.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 61: This section outlines the general validity period for search warrants, with 14 days being the default period unless specified otherwise by the issuing officer.
In conclusion, B. 14 days is the correct answer as it reflects the standard validity period for a search warrant issued under New Zealand law, with exceptions made for justified extensions.
Question 223
Risk assessment is essential in the Search Warrant process. When should risk assessment occur?
A. Before the SW application is completed and before SW reporting.
B. Before the SW is executed on this occasion and any other occasion.
C. Before the SW application is completed and prior to execution.
C. Before the SW application is completed and prior to execution.
Reasoning:
Risk assessment is a critical component of the search warrant (SW) process. It ensures the safety of officers, other individuals at the scene, and the proper handling of evidence. According to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and Police policy, a thorough risk assessment must be conducted both before the search warrant application is completed and prior to the execution of the warrant.
The risk assessment should consider the following:
The potential dangers at the scene (e.g., presence of weapons, suspects’ behaviour, or the location).
The resources needed (e.g., backup officers or specialist assistance).
The safety of both the officers and any individuals at the location to be searched.
The circumstances under which the search is to be executed, including any relevant time factors or conditions that might impact the search.
The risk assessment must be documented, and the findings guide the operational plan for executing the warrant.
Why not the other options?
A. Before the SW application is completed and before SW reporting. While the risk assessment is done before the warrant is executed, it is not typically required to be completed before the SW application or reporting. The risk assessment is more about evaluating conditions before the actual execution of the warrant and considering all potential risks related to the search operation.
B. Before the SW is executed on this occasion and any other occasion. This answer is too broad and is not the standard procedural requirement. Risk assessment must be done before the application is completed and prior to execution of the warrant. Risk assessment is not only limited to the execution but should also inform the SW application process to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken before applying for a warrant.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Sections 61 and 63 require officers to consider the safety and conditions before executing a warrant. Risk assessments guide this decision.
Police policy and guidelines on Search Warrants: Emphasizes that risk assessments are a required part of both the planning and execution stages of a search warrant.
In conclusion, C. Before the SW application is completed and prior to execution is the correct answer as it aligns with the standard practice of conducting risk assessments both during the application phase and before executing the warrant.
Question 224
The Judge must exclude a defendant’s statement if they are satisfied the statement was improperly obtained. What is the standard of proof required?
A. Beyond reasonable doubt.
B. Balance of probabilities.
C. Probable cause.
B. Balance of probabilities.
Reasoning:
The standard of proof for excluding a defendant’s statement due to it being improperly obtained is balance of probabilities. This means that the judge must be satisfied that, on the whole, it is more likely than not that the statement was obtained improperly. This standard is lower than “beyond reasonable doubt,” which is used to prove guilt in criminal cases.
In the context of excluding evidence, the judge does not need to be convinced beyond all doubt that the statement was improperly obtained. Instead, they must determine that it is more likely than not that the statement was obtained in a way that violates the defendant’s rights, such as through coercion, duress, or improper procedure.
Why not the other options?
A. Beyond reasonable doubt. This standard of proof is used to establish guilt in criminal cases, not to determine the admissibility of evidence. For excluding evidence, a lower standard is used, which is why “balance of probabilities” is appropriate.
C. Probable cause. This standard is typically used to justify searches or arrests. It requires that there be a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or that evidence will be found. It is not applicable in determining whether a statement should be excluded due to improper obtaining.
Sources:
Evidence Act 2006, Section 8: This section addresses the admissibility of evidence and specifically outlines that a judge must exclude improperly obtained statements if the defendant proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement was obtained in an improper manner.
Conclusion:
The correct standard for excluding a defendant’s statement is B. Balance of probabilities, as it focuses on determining whether it is more likely than not that the statement was obtained improperly.
Question 225
A common approach path to and from the crime scene is established to:
A. Show where the scene examination zones are located.
B. Keep records of all people who enter and exit the scene.
C. Control access to the scene to prevent contamination.
C. Control access to the scene to prevent contamination.
Reasoning:
A common approach path is established to control access to the crime scene and prevent contamination. This ensures that only authorized personnel enter specific areas of the crime scene, and it helps maintain the integrity of the evidence. By controlling access, investigators can reduce the risk of contamination or tampering with the evidence, which is essential for ensuring that the evidence collected is reliable and admissible in court.
Why not the other answers?
A. Show where the scene examination zones are located. While an approach path may help define the boundaries of the crime scene, its primary purpose is not to indicate where different zones of the scene are located. The zones themselves (such as hot, warm, and cold zones) are typically designated based on the specific needs of the investigation, but the approach path’s purpose is more related to access control.
B. Keep records of all people who enter and exit the scene. While recording who enters and exits the scene is important, this is a secondary aspect of establishing an approach path. The main reason for creating a defined path is to control access and prevent contamination, not primarily to track the movement of people. However, such records would be part of the overall scene management and security.
Sources:
Crime Scene Management Procedures: The primary purpose of the approach path in crime scene management is to control access to the scene, ensuring that only authorized individuals can enter and exit the crime scene, thus protecting the scene’s integrity and preventing contamination of evidence.
Conclusion:
The correct answer is C. Control access to the scene to prevent contamination, as it reflects the primary purpose of establishing a common approach path at a crime scene.
Question 226
With respect to a victim’s property that may be held as evidence, Police are obliged to:
A. Inform the victim that their property will help gain a guilty conviction and is required as a court exhibit.
B. Discuss the evidential requirement with the victim and ensure the property is returned as soon as practicable after it is no longer needed.
C. Inform the victim that the property is required for disclosure to the offender’s lawyer before the court date.
B. Discuss the evidential requirement with the victim and ensure the property is returned as soon as practicable after it is no longer needed.
Reasoning:
Police are obligated to discuss with the victim the need to hold their property as evidence and ensure it is returned promptly once it is no longer needed for the investigation or court proceedings. The primary goal is to handle the victim’s property carefully, explain its evidentiary role, and return it as soon as it is no longer required for evidential purposes.
Why not the other answers?
A. Inform the victim that their property will help gain a guilty conviction and is required as a court exhibit. This statement is inaccurate. While it is important to inform the victim that their property is required as evidence, it is not appropriate to state that it is specifically required to help gain a guilty conviction. The purpose of holding property as evidence is to support the investigation and the legal process, but it is not guaranteed to directly result in a conviction.
C. Inform the victim that the property is required for disclosure to the offender’s lawyer before the court date. This answer is not correct. While disclosure may be part of the legal process, informing the victim specifically about disclosure to the offender’s lawyer is not the primary obligation when holding evidence. The priority is to explain the evidential requirement to the victim and ensure the property is returned when no longer needed, not specifically discussing disclosure processes with the victim.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Under the Victims’ Rights Act, police must ensure victims’ property is handled appropriately, discussed with them, and returned promptly once the property is no longer needed for evidence.
Police Practice and Procedure: Police guidelines emphasize the importance of communication with victims regarding the use of their property as evidence and returning it once the investigative and legal process requirements are met.
Conclusion:
The correct answer is B. Discuss the evidential requirement with the victim and ensure the property is returned as soon as practicable after it is no longer needed, as it reflects the obligations to properly handle victims’ property and promptly return it once the case is no longer dependent on it.
Question 227
When do you caution a youth?
A. Before asking any questions intended to obtain an admission.
B. When there is circumstantial evidence against the youth.
C. When you are reasonably certain they have offended.
A. Before asking any questions intended to obtain an admission.
Question 228
A victim of a sexual assault is transported in the same police vehicle as the offender later in the day. What is this called?
A. Deterioration.
B. Loss of evidence.
C. Cross-contamination.
C. Cross-contamination.
Reasoning:
Cross-contamination refers to the transfer of evidence, information, or even emotional or psychological effects from one individual to another, potentially altering or tainting the integrity of the investigation. In this case, transporting both the victim and the offender in the same police vehicle may lead to cross-contamination, as it could potentially alter the victim’s perspective or testimony, or even lead to an improper influence on the victim or the situation. Additionally, transporting both parties together could make the victim feel unsafe or compromised, thereby affecting their ability to give evidence freely and fairly.
This scenario could also affect the forensic or investigative process by mixing the accounts of the victim and offender, which is why it is generally avoided in handling victims and offenders in separate transport.
Why not the other answers?
A. Deterioration. Deterioration refers to physical evidence being exposed to conditions (such as weather or time) that lead to its degradation. In this context, the concern is not with the physical deterioration of evidence, but with the psychological and emotional impact on the victim, or the possibility of influencing their testimony. Therefore, deterioration is not the best term for this situation.
B. Loss of evidence. Loss of evidence typically refers to physical or material evidence being destroyed, misplaced, or otherwise lost. While the victim’s emotional or psychological well-being could be affected in this situation, “loss of evidence” doesn’t fully capture the issue of compromising the integrity of the victim’s testimony or the potential for influence from the offender.
Sources:
NZ Police Policy: In situations involving sexual assault, victims are typically given separate transport from offenders to prevent cross-contamination and ensure the integrity of their testimony and the safety of the victim.
Forensic Best Practices: Cross-contamination is a well-understood concept in forensic science and investigation, which involves ensuring that victims and offenders are not exposed to one another in a way that could lead to undue influence or contamination of the investigative process.
Conclusion:
The correct answer is C. Cross-contamination, as this term best describes the potential influence or compromise on the victim’s testimony, safety, and overall integrity of the investigation when both the victim and offender are transported together.
Question 229
Roger has been charged with Aggravated Burglary, a category 3 offence. He is pleading not guilty and wants to elect a jury trial. When can he make an election?
A. At the same time he enters his not guilty plea.
B. At any time before the case management discussion.
C. He cannot elect a jury trial for a category 3 offence.
A. At the same time he enters his not guilty plea.
Question 230
“The truth may be elusive, so you may need to be persistent”. In this statement, ‘persistent’ refers to interviewer behaviour and means:
A. Asking questions for as long as it takes to get a full and truthful account from the suspect.
B. Asking a question in many different ways so that any lies told will become more apparent.
C. Asking questions in a manner that will stand up to the scrutiny of the court.
C?
B: Asking a question in many different ways so that any lies told will become more apparent.
Here’s the reasoning:
Option A could sound reasonable at first, but it’s more about persistence in terms of asking questions repeatedly, not necessarily trying to uncover truth from different angles or testing consistency. It’s about persistence in questioning to make inconsistencies evident, not just long questioning.
Option B focuses on how “persistent” interviewing should involve asking the same question or similar questions in various ways to expose any contradictions or lies. This is aligned with investigative interview techniques where the aim is to detect inconsistencies or falsehoods by varying how the questions are posed.
Option C could be true as well in the context of questioning, but it does not align with the meaning of “persistent” in this context. The idea of asking in a way that “will stand up to the scrutiny of the court” is more about the legal process than it is about persistent behavior specifically used to reveal truth.
So, the reason why B is correct is that it is consistent with the idea of using persistence in questioning to reveal inconsistencies or lies, which is a core principle of effective investigative interviewing techniques.
If you have doubts about this answer, I encourage you to refer to the New Zealand Police Investigative Interviewing Manual, which outlines how interviewers should approach questioning with suspects, especially when it comes to determining the truth. In this context, persistence is an important tactic to uncover falsehoods, hence B is the correct choice.
Question 231
One of the principles laid down in the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 guides the treatment of victims. In this respect Police are obliged to:
A. Treat all victims in a manner which is courteous, compassionate and respectful
B. Tell the victim that Police will do everything they can to help the victim achieve justice
C. Ensure a Victim gets the assistance of a person from their local Victim Support agency
The correct answer is A. Treat all victims in a manner which is courteous, compassionate and respectful.
Reasoning:
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 outlines how victims of crime should be treated by the police and other justice system actors. It emphasizes the rights of victims to be treated with dignity and respect throughout the criminal justice process.
A. Treat all victims in a manner which is courteous, compassionate and respectful is directly in line with the principles established in the Act, which require police to interact with victims in a way that recognizes their dignity and ensures that they feel heard and supported.
B. Tell the victim that Police will do everything they can to help the victim achieve justice is incorrect because it promises a specific outcome (achieving justice), which may not always be within the police’s control. The law mandates providing support, but not promises of outcomes.
C. Ensure a victim gets the assistance of a person from their local Victim Support agency is not an explicit requirement of the Act, although it is a good practice. Police are encouraged to inform victims about available support services, but it’s not their responsibility to guarantee that assistance.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 6 (Duty of police to inform victims of their rights and treat them with respect).
Question 232
While investigating complaints of theft ex cars, you approach a woman standing beside a vehicle and ask her some direct questions. The woman becomes very upset saying you have no right to approach innocent people and question them. Is the woman correct in stating that you are not allowed to question her?
A. No, an officer may ask questions of any person from whom it is thought useful information may be obtained.
B. Yes, police only have the right to speak to the woman after she has been given her Rights/Caution.
C. Yes, the police cannot arbitrarily speak with anyone they wish when investigating crime.
Answer: A. No, an officer may ask questions of any person from whom it is thought useful information may be obtained.
Reasoning:
Under New Zealand law, police officers have the authority to question people in public as part of their investigation, especially if they believe the person may have useful information or be involved in the crime being investigated.
Option A is correct because police officers have the right to ask questions of any person if it is believed that the person may have information relevant to the investigation. This is a routine part of police work when investigating crime, especially in cases such as thefts from cars, where witnesses or people in the vicinity may hold crucial information. The law allows officers to conduct inquiries and gather information without having to first caution or advise individuals, unless the individual becomes a suspect or their situation requires it (e.g., if they are arrested or detained).
Option B is incorrect because the rights caution (under the Criminal Investigations (Rights of Persons) Act 1985) is only required when a person is being detained or formally interviewed as a suspect, not when simply asking someone for information. A rights caution is given when a person is being questioned in relation to an offence where they are a suspect, but this isn’t the case here.
Option C is also incorrect because, while police cannot arbitrarily stop or detain people, they can ask questions in a public space as long as they are not violating a person’s rights. The police can approach people in public, especially when investigating crimes and gather information without needing to have them under formal investigation.
Sources:
Criminal Investigations (Rights of Persons) Act 1985, Section 4 (Right to remain silent applies when a person is formally questioned as a suspect, not when casually asked for information).
New Zealand Police Powers: Police can ask questions as part of their general duty to investigate and gather information from people in a public place.
Why not the other answers?
B is incorrect because a caution is not required just to ask questions unless the person is formally being questioned as a suspect or detained.
C is incorrect because police do not need to meet the standard of “arbitrary” when asking questions, as long as the questioning is in good faith, related to their duties, and doesn’t infringe upon any person’s legal rights.
Question 233
Jo has an argument with his neighbour and is so enraged that he burns his cigarette into his neighbour’s face repeatedly causing in excess of 10 burns. However, 12 months later and before the jury trial in relation to the incident, the burn marks have faded so much that they are no longer visible. Which of the following charges is the most appropriate?
A. With intent to injure anyone, maims.
B. With intent to cause grievous bodily harm to anyone, wounds.
C. With intent to injure anyone, disfigures.
Answer: C. With intent to injure anyone, disfigures.
Reasoning:
In this case, Jo’s actions—burning his neighbour with a cigarette—were intended to cause harm. The key to the appropriate charge lies in the nature of the injury and the consequences of the act:
Option A: With intent to injure anyone, maims.
This is incorrect because “maiming” refers to causing permanent damage or the loss of a body part or its use. While the burns in this case are serious, they faded significantly over time and are no longer visible. “Maiming” typically implies a permanent, lasting injury, which doesn’t apply in this scenario since the burns are no longer visible.
Option B: With intent to cause grievous bodily harm to anyone, wounds.
This is incorrect because “wounds” are typically used to describe injuries that break the skin and cause visible trauma. While Jo’s actions certainly caused injury, the charge of “wounding” typically refers to more severe and noticeable physical harm, such as cuts, lacerations, or punctures that are physically obvious at the time of trial. Since the burns faded significantly within 12 months, this charge may not be the most appropriate.
Option C: With intent to injure anyone, disfigures.
This is correct because “disfigurement” refers to permanent or significant visible damage to a person’s appearance. While the burns faded over time, they were severe enough to cause visible injury, even though that injury is no longer present. The term “disfigurement” can apply to injuries that leave temporary marks or visible scarring, even if those marks heal or fade over time. The intent to harm (disfigure) is central here, and disfiguring injuries can still be applicable even if the burns are no longer visible at the time of trial.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 188 (Intent to cause injury or harm is addressed here, along with classifications of bodily harm such as “maiming” and “disfigurement”).
Legal Definitions of Injury and Harm: In New Zealand law, disfigurement includes visible injuries, even if they have faded, when caused with the intent to harm.
Why not the other answers?
A (Maims): “Maiming” refers to permanent loss or damage to a body part or function, which does not apply in this case as the burns faded.
B (Wounds): “Wounds” generally applies to more obvious, visible injuries such as cuts and lacerations, which are not fitting for this case where the burns have faded.
Question 234
In relation to an offence of ‘aggravated robbery’ the ingredient of “being together with any other person or persons” means:
A. Must be physically in the vicinity of the robbery and aiding in its commission.
B. Must be physically present at the robbery in either an active or inactive role.
C. Must be physically present at the robbery and taking an active part.
Answer: C. Must be physically present at the robbery and taking an active part.
Reasoning:
The key element of “being together with any other person or persons” in the context of an aggravated robbery relates to the physical presence and active involvement of multiple individuals in the commission of the crime. To qualify as an accomplice in the offence of aggravated robbery, individuals must actively participate in the crime, not merely be in the vicinity.
Option A: Must be physically in the vicinity of the robbery and aiding in its commission.
This is incorrect because mere proximity or being “in the vicinity” is insufficient. To be involved in aggravated robbery, individuals must take an active part in the robbery, rather than just being present in the area.
Option B: Must be physically present at the robbery in either an active or inactive role.
This is incorrect because an inactive role (e.g., merely standing by without taking any active part) does not meet the requirements for an aggravated robbery charge. The law requires active participation.
Option C: Must be physically present at the robbery and taking an active part.
This is correct because “being together with any other person or persons” in the context of aggravated robbery requires that the individuals are physically present and actively participating in the robbery. Active participation could include using force, threatening the victim, or assisting in the robbery in some way.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 234 (Aggravated robbery definition): This section defines aggravated robbery and specifies that more than one person involved in the robbery must take an active part.
Legal Precedents: In New Zealand law, an active role means more than just being present; the person must contribute in some meaningful way to the commission of the crime.
Why not the other answers?
A (In the vicinity and aiding): Being in the vicinity is not sufficient. Active participation is required.
B (Active or inactive role): An inactive role does not meet the criteria for aggravated robbery under the law. Active involvement is necessary.
Question 235
The correct method to collect a dry blood sample at a crime scene is to:
A. Dab blood with dry swab then add sterile water to the swab.
B. Dampen swab with sterile water then gently rub the blood.
C. Add sterile water to the blood then gently rub with dry swab.
Answer: B. Dampen swab with sterile water then gently rub the blood.
Reasoning:
The correct procedure for collecting a dry blood sample involves ensuring that the blood sample is not disrupted or contaminated during the process. Blood at a crime scene can often be dry and may require moisture to prevent contamination or damage to the sample when it is collected.
Option A: Dab blood with dry swab then add sterile water to the swab.
This is incorrect because using a dry swab first can cause the blood sample to be damaged or inadequately lifted, and adding sterile water afterward may cause the blood to become smeared or diluted unnecessarily.
Option B: Dampen swab with sterile water then gently rub the blood.
This is correct because dampening the swab with sterile water before gently rubbing the blood allows for the blood to be properly collected without damaging the sample. The moisture helps lift the sample from the surface without dispersing it.
Option C: Add sterile water to the blood then gently rub with dry swab.
This is incorrect because adding water directly to the blood before using a dry swab could lead to contamination or dispersion of the blood, which would compromise the sample.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Forensic Protocols: Guidelines for the correct methods of evidence collection, particularly when handling biological samples such as blood, recommend dampening swabs with sterile water before use to maintain the integrity of the sample.
Forensic Best Practices: International guidelines on evidence collection from crime scenes similarly stress the importance of using damp swabs to collect blood samples while minimizing contamination.
Why not the other answers?
Option A: Adding water after dabbing with a dry swab risks damaging or dispersing the blood sample.
Option C: Adding water directly to the blood could lead to contamination and the dry swab could fail to properly collect the sample.
Question 236
For any investigation, you should aim to collect:
A. Evidence first then look for information and intelligence.
B. The maximum amount of material and examine for its use.
C. Only material that you know is relevant and admissible.
nswer: B. The maximum amount of material and examine for its use.
Reasoning:
In an investigation, especially in the context of criminal investigations, it is crucial to collect as much relevant material as possible in order to thoroughly examine and determine its potential use. This ensures that no critical evidence is overlooked, and the full scope of the investigation is explored. Collecting the maximum amount of material allows for a complete investigation, even if some material may not be immediately deemed relevant.
Option A: Evidence first then look for information and intelligence.
This is incorrect because, while evidence is important, you should not collect evidence in isolation without considering other aspects, such as information or intelligence, that could provide context or lead to further discoveries. The investigation should be more comprehensive.
Option B: The maximum amount of material and examine for its use.
This is correct because it reflects a thorough approach to gathering all relevant materials. Investigators should collect a variety of materials, such as documents, physical evidence, testimonies, and digital data, and analyze them for potential links, patterns, or relevance.
Option C: Only material that you know is relevant and admissible.
This is incorrect because limiting your collection to only known relevant or admissible material might lead to missing critical evidence. In an investigation, the full scope of materials should be collected, and their relevance and admissibility can be determined later.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Forensic Protocols: Guidance for investigators includes a recommendation to gather as much material as possible to ensure that the investigation is complete and thorough.
General Investigative Best Practices: In any criminal investigation, it’s essential to not only collect physical evidence but also information, intelligence, and witness accounts that could contribute to the overall case.
Why not the other answers?
Option A: Focusing on evidence first without considering information or intelligence may limit the investigation.
Option C: Limiting the collection of material to what is immediately known as relevant could result in missing important pieces of the investigation that may emerge later.
Question 237
Your prompt initial action at a serious crime scene has led to the apprehension of a male acting suspiciously close by. You should:
A. Arrest him and transport him to the Police Station.
B. Consider conducting a preliminary interview.
C. Ask him to show you where he has been in the crime scene.
Answer: B. Consider conducting a preliminary interview.
Reasoning:
When a suspect is apprehended near a serious crime scene, a preliminary interview is an essential step to gather information, clarify the individual’s involvement, and assess if there is probable cause for further action. This initial interview can help determine whether the individual is a witness, a person of interest, or a potential suspect. It is an opportunity to document statements while ensuring the rights of the individual are respected.
Option A: Arrest him and transport him to the Police Station.
This is incorrect because, unless there is sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds to arrest the individual, an arrest should not be made prematurely. Arresting the individual without clear grounds could result in legal issues, and the decision to arrest should follow from the information obtained during the preliminary interview.
Option B: Consider conducting a preliminary interview.
This is correct because it allows the officer to obtain valuable information about the person’s presence at the crime scene, their actions, and any potential connections to the crime. This interview may help establish whether further investigative action is needed, such as making an arrest or continuing the investigation.
Option C: Ask him to show you where he has been in the crime scene.
This is incorrect because asking the individual to show where they’ve been in the crime scene could be problematic, especially without understanding their role in the scene. If they are not yet identified as a suspect, this action could risk compromising evidence or misinterpreting their involvement. A preliminary interview should be conducted first to clarify their role before making such requests.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Procedures: Guidance on handling suspects at crime scenes, including conducting preliminary interviews.
Criminal Investigation Guidelines: Standard practice in investigations recommends conducting an initial interview to gather information before deciding on the next steps.
Why not the other answers?
Option A: Arresting the individual should not be done unless there is a clear legal basis for it. The investigation and gathering of initial statements should come first.
Option C: Asking the individual to show where they have been in the crime scene can interfere with the evidence collection process and could be inappropriate at this stage.
Question 238
As part of the SW application process, you must check that your NIA target is valid. You need to do this because details of any SW applications made on your target:
A. In that location will be attached to your application.
B. In the last 6 months will be attached to your application.
C. In the last 3 months will be attached to your application.
C. In the last 3 months will be attached to your application.
Reasoning:
When applying for a search warrant (SW), it is essential to ensure that any previous applications for the target of the warrant are disclosed. This helps maintain transparency and prevent repetitive or unjustified applications. According to Section 65 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, details of any SW applications made on the same target in the last 3 months must be included in the application. This ensures that the application is based on current and relevant information, and the legitimacy of the warrant can be properly assessed by the court or issuing officer.
Option A: In that location will be attached to your application.
This is incorrect because the location of previous applications is not the primary concern when reviewing a target’s validity. The focus is on whether previous applications were made in the last 3 months, not necessarily their location.
Option B: In the last 6 months will be attached to your application.
This is incorrect because the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 specifically requires disclosure of applications within the last 3 months, not 6 months. The shorter 3-month window helps ensure the search warrant process is based on the most relevant and up-to-date information.
Option C: In the last 3 months will be attached to your application.
This is correct because the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 requires you to disclose any previous search warrant applications made on the same target within the last 3 months. This is to ensure transparency and prevent unnecessary repetition of applications for the same target.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 65: Provides guidelines on the disclosure of previous search warrant applications for the same target within the last 3 months.
Why not the other answers?
Option A: The location of the target in previous applications is not the focus; the time frame (last 3 months) is the relevant factor.
Option B: The law specifically mentions the last 3 months, not 6 months, making this answer incorrect.
Question 239
As a condition of the authorisation of your SW application, an IO may require you to complete:
A. A S & S system SW outcome.
B. A s104 search warrant report.
C. A post-warrant intelligence report.
Answer: B. A s104 search warrant report.
Reasoning:
When a search warrant (SW) is executed, the issuing officer (IO) may require specific documentation related to the warrant’s execution. One such report is the s104 search warrant report, which provides details of the warrant execution, including the results of the search and any material seized. This report is an essential part of maintaining accountability and documenting the proper handling of the search and its outcomes.
Option A: A S & S system SW outcome.
This is incorrect because the S & S system SW outcome refers to an outcome logged in the system related to the execution of a search warrant, but the more formal requirement would be the s104 search warrant report. The outcome is part of the system, but not the specific document required for reporting.
Option B: A s104 search warrant report.
This is correct because, per standard police procedures, a s104 search warrant report is required to document the execution and outcomes of the search, including the items seized and any other relevant findings. This ensures that the search process is properly recorded for legal and procedural purposes.
Option C: A post-warrant intelligence report.
This is incorrect because while intelligence gathering may occur post-warrant execution, the primary document the IO may require for the execution of the warrant is the s104 search warrant report. A post-warrant intelligence report may be created in other circumstances, but it is not a standard requirement tied to the initial search warrant execution.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 104: Discusses the requirement for a formal report following the execution of a search warrant, often documented as the s104 search warrant report.
Why not the other answers?
Option A: While important for record-keeping in the S & S system, the s104 search warrant report is the more formal and specific report required by the IO.
Option C: A post-warrant intelligence report is not typically a standard condition directly tied to the execution of a search warrant, unlike the s104 report.
Question 240
If you have RGTB that a person may hinder you when you are securing a place to be searched, s116 allows you to exclude the person from the place you are searching and:
A. Secure that person in another place.
B. Give that person any reasonable direction.
C. Detain that person indefinite
B. Give that person any reasonable direction.
Reasoning:
Section 116 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 provides police with the authority to exclude a person from a place being searched if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person may hinder the search. In this case, the police officer can give that person any reasonable direction in order to maintain control of the situation and ensure that the search is carried out effectively and without interference.
Option A: Secure that person in another place.
This is incorrect because Section 116 does not grant authority to secure or physically restrain the person in another location unless there are additional circumstances such as arrest or further legal justifications for detention.
Option B: Give that person any reasonable direction.
This is correct because Section 116(2) of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows a police officer to give the person any reasonable direction to maintain order while securing the place to be searched. This helps ensure that the search proceeds without disruption.
Option C: Detain that person indefinitely.
This is incorrect because Section 116 does not grant police the authority to detain someone indefinitely. The person may be excluded or given reasonable directions, but detention must have a lawful basis, such as arrest.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 116: Governs the powers of police when excluding individuals from a place being searched, specifying that reasonable directions can be given to maintain order and prevent interference.
Why not the other answers?
Option A: Section 116 does not allow indefinite detention or securing someone in another place unless they are arrested under other provisions of the law.
Option C: Detaining someone indefinitely is outside the scope of Section 116 and would require legal justification such as arrest under another part of the law.
Question 241
A P1 call takes you to the home of an elderly man who disturbed a burglar wearing a LA Lakers hoodie. He gives the registration number of the car that the burglar drove off in. A short time later you stop the vehicle (s9) and arrest the sole occupant (who is not wearing a hoodie). Can you search the vehicle under s10?
A. No, because there is no property reported stolen by the elderly man.
B. Yes, because you can search for evidential material related to the offence.
C. No, because s10 does not allow a search of the vehicle stopped under s9.
Answer: B. Yes, because you can search for evidential material related to the offence.
Reasoning:
Under Section 10 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a search may be conducted if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the vehicle contains evidential material related to the offence. In this case, the elderly man described a suspect and their vehicle, and police have reasonable grounds to suspect that the car involved in the crime may contain evidential material such as stolen property or items associated with the crime.
Since the car was stopped shortly after the incident and it is related to a reported crime (theft), the search is permissible under s10 to look for evidence related to the theft.
Why it’s not the other answers:
Answer A: “No, because there is no property reported stolen by the elderly man.”
This is incorrect because the law allows a search based on reasonable grounds to suspect the vehicle may contain evidence related to the offence, not necessarily based on the victim immediately reporting stolen property. The important factor is the connection to the crime.
Answer C: “No, because s10 does not allow a search of the vehicle stopped under s9.”
This is incorrect because s10 allows police to search for evidential material if they have reasonable grounds to suspect it’s present. The connection to the crime and the reasonable suspicion that the car contains evidence justify the search under s10.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 – Section 10 provides the authority to search a vehicle for evidential material if there are reasonable grounds to believe evidence exists.
Question 242
Because deleted images can very easily be recovered from digital cameras, the guidelines direct:
Intranet: Photography
A. Digital cameras are assigned to a named position or employee.
B. The image taker should regularly reformat the camera.
C. The image taker must promptly delete the images in the camera.
A. Digital cameras are assigned to a named position or employee.
Reasoning:
To ensure the integrity of digital evidence, the guidelines for handling digital cameras in investigations typically require that cameras are assigned to a specific individual or position. This is to maintain a clear chain of custody for the equipment and the images it captures. Assigning the camera to a particular employee ensures that there is accountability, and that the camera is not misused or tampered with, which could potentially compromise any digital evidence collected during the investigation.
Why it’s not the other answers:
Answer B: “The image taker should regularly reformat the camera.”
Reformatting the camera could lead to the loss of important evidence. The camera should be preserved in its original state to maintain the integrity of any data or images it may contain. Reformatting it regularly could lead to data loss and might compromise an investigation.
Answer C: “The image taker must promptly delete the images in the camera.”
Deleting images is counterproductive because it could lead to the destruction of potential evidence. In fact, images should be transferred to secure storage or the appropriate system before any action is taken that might result in data loss. Deleting images without following proper procedure could impair the investigation and violate evidential preservation protocols.
Sources:
Intranet: Photography Guidelines for handling digital imaging and maintaining the integrity of the evidence captured by police photographers. These guidelines generally align with best practices for chain of custody in handling evidence, ensuring digital devices and data are properly managed and tracked.
Question 243
During an interview, the suspect alleges another officer has been stopping him unnecessarily and he wants to make a complaint. Should a suspect’s complaint affect the interview progress in any way?
A. Yes, the interview must be stopped and the complaint details recorded and appropriately addressed.
B. Yes, the complaint should be noted on video and the suspect told that they will be referred to a senior officer following this interview.
C. No, the interviewer may use their discretion to continue the interview and overlook the complaint.
B. Yes, the complaint should be noted on video and the suspect told that they will be referred to a senior officer following this interview.
Reasoning:
When a suspect makes a complaint during an interview, particularly one regarding police conduct, it is important that the complaint is properly documented and addressed. The complaint should be recorded on video as part of the interview process, ensuring that the record is complete and transparent. The suspect should also be informed that their complaint will be referred to a senior officer for further review, which demonstrates that the police are taking the matter seriously and following appropriate procedure.
This approach helps to maintain the integrity of the interview while ensuring that any potential misconduct is acknowledged and handled in the proper manner. It also protects the police from any allegations of not addressing the complaint appropriately.
Why it’s not the other answers:
Answer A: “Yes, the interview must be stopped and the complaint details recorded and appropriately addressed.”
Stopping the interview immediately may not be necessary unless the complaint is disrupting the process. While the complaint should certainly be recorded, stopping the interview entirely could impede the investigation unless the situation demands it.
Answer C: “No, the interviewer may use their discretion to continue the interview and overlook the complaint.”
Overlooking the complaint is not appropriate, as it could lead to the perception that the police are not taking the suspect’s concerns seriously. It is important to handle complaints with transparency, and not addressing them properly could undermine the integrity of the interview and the investigation.
Sources:
Police interview guidelines and best practices: Police interview protocols often emphasize the importance of documenting any complaints made by suspects, especially regarding police conduct, and ensuring that they are dealt with appropriately.
Question 244
You locate a pile of wet documents at a scene and want to forward them to the document examiner. The correct procedure is:
A. Seal in an airtight container or bag and forward the wet documents to the examiner.
B. Carefully separate the pages for drying and then when dry place each page in a plastic sleeve before forwarding for examination.
C. Dry the pile of documents before sealing in an envelope and forward for examination.
A. Seal in an airtight container or bag and forward the wet documents to the examiner.
Question 245
When executing a SW for stolen goods in or on a place or vehicle you must always comply with your s131 obligations to give notice except when:
A. The occupant clearly consents to you executing the SW and you do not seize any items.
B. The owner or occupier is not present at the place or vehicle to be searched.
C. Circumstances exist that make it too dangerous or might prejudice the investigation.
Answer: C. Circumstances exist that make it too dangerous or might prejudice the investigation.
Reasoning:
Section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 stipulates that police must give notice to the owner or occupier of the place or vehicle being searched. However, there are situations in which this requirement can be waived if it would either:
Endanger the safety of the officers or others (making it too dangerous to give notice), or
Compromise the effectiveness of the search (such as tipping off the suspect, which could lead to the destruction of evidence or fleeing before the search is executed).
In these cases, notice is not required to be provided before or after the search.
Why Answer B is not correct:
B. The owner or occupier is not present at the place or vehicle to be searched.
While it’s true that the police don’t need to give notice to an absent owner or occupier, this is not the exception covered under Section 131. Section 131’s main exceptions focus on dangers or risks to the investigation, not simply the absence of the person. If no one is present, the police may proceed without notice, but the intention of the question seems to be addressing risk and safety concerns.
Why Answer A is not correct:
A. The occupant clearly consents to you executing the SW and you do not seize any items.
Consent doesn’t change the requirement to provide notice. Even with consent, notice is still typically required unless other conditions are met (like safety or investigative risks).
Conclusion:
The correct answer is C because it directly relates to the situation where the need for secrecy or safety during the execution of the search warrants the omission of notice.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 131
Question 246
Although a judge may exclude an interview based on unreliability, this does not exclude the interview being offered as evidence of the:
A. Inconsistency of any prior statements.
B. Lies allegedly made by the defendant.
C. Defendant’s physical or mental condition.
C. Defendant’s physical or mental condition.
Section 15 Evidence Act 2006
Exclusion of unreliable statements
(1)
This section applies to a criminal proceeding in which the prosecution offers or proposes to offer a statement of a defendant if—
(a)
the defendant or, if applicable, a co-defendant against whom the statement is offered raises, on the basis of an evidential foundation, the issue of the reliability of the statement and informs the Judge and the prosecution of the grounds for raising the issue; or
(b)
the Judge raises the issue of the reliability of the statement and informs the prosecution of the grounds for raising the issue.
(2)
The Judge must exclude the statement unless satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the circumstances in which the statement was made were not likely to have adversely affected its reliability.
(3)
However, subsection (2) does not have effect to exclude a statement made by a defendant if the statement is offered only as evidence of the physical, mental, or psychological condition of the defendant at the time the statement was made or as evidence of whether the statement was made.
(4)
Without limiting the matters that a Judge may take into account for the purpose of applying subsection (2), the Judge must, in each case, take into account any of the following matters that are relevant to the case:
(a)
any pertinent physical, mental, or psychological condition of the defendant when the statement was made (whether apparent or not):
(b)
any pertinent characteristics of the defendant including any mental, intellectual, or physical disability to which the defendant is subject (whether apparent or not):
(c)
the nature of any questions put to the defendant and the manner and circumstances in which they were put:
(d)
the nature of any threat, promise, or representation made to the defendant or any other person.
Question 247
An appreciation is the mental process, the written plan:
A. Shows that the investigator has done their job thoroughly and knows their responsibilities.
B. Records decision making and shows why a certain course of action was decided.
C. Is primarily for use in discussion or briefing events with colleagues and supervisors.
B. Records decision making and shows why a certain course of action was decided.
Reasoning:
An appreciation is a written plan or mental process that is used to document the reasoning behind certain actions taken during an investigation. The purpose of this written plan is to:
Document decision-making processes.
Provide reasoning for the decisions made.
Ensure transparency and accountability in the investigative process.
This allows other members of the investigation team to understand the rationale for particular investigative decisions and ensures that the actions taken are well-documented in case there is a need to review them later.
Why it’s not the other answers:
A. Shows that the investigator has done their job thoroughly and knows their responsibilities:
While an appreciation may imply a thorough understanding of the investigator’s responsibilities, the key focus is not simply showing that the investigator has done their job thoroughly. It’s more about explaining the reasoning behind specific decisions made during the investigation.
C. Is primarily for use in discussion or briefing events with colleagues and supervisors:
Although an appreciation may be referred to during discussions or briefings, it is not primarily created for those occasions. Instead, it serves as an important document that captures why decisions were made, ensuring that investigative steps are well thought out and justified.
Sources:
The reasoning aligns with investigative practices and best practices found in various investigation protocols, as well as common law practices used in criminal investigations. The appreciation is a key part of the investigation documentation process, which is especially important in ensuring that decisions are grounded in reason and can be reviewed later.
Thus, the best option is B, which accurately reflects the purpose of an appreciation in investigative contexts.
Question 248
When a witness signs the declaration on a witness statement, the interviewer must ensure the witness understands they are agreeing that - To the best of their knowledge and belief their statement is true and:
A. They have read over what is written, agree they have been fairly treated but have nothing more to add.
B. They know how the statement may be used and the consequences of giving false or misleading information.
C. They have been told how their statement will be used and are prepared to give evidence in court if required.
B. They know how the statement may be used and the consequences of giving false or misleading information.
Reasoning:
When a witness signs the declaration on a witness statement, the interviewer must ensure that the witness fully understands the implications of their statement. This includes:
The purpose of the statement: The witness must know how their statement will be used in the legal process, including the potential impact it could have on the case.
The consequences of false information: The witness must also be aware that providing false or misleading information in the statement could have legal consequences, including the possibility of prosecution for making a false statement.
This ensures the witness is fully informed about the importance of the statement they are making and understands the legal ramifications of providing inaccurate or misleading information.
Why it’s not the other answers:
A. They have read over what is written, agree they have been fairly treated but have nothing more to add:
While it’s important for the witness to have read and understood the statement, this option doesn’t cover the crucial aspect of explaining the consequences of giving false or misleading information. It focuses more on the fairness of treatment and the fact the witness has read the statement, which is important but incomplete in this context.
C. They have been told how their statement will be used and are prepared to give evidence in court if required:
This option addresses the preparedness to testify in court, but it misses the vital point of the consequences of giving false or misleading information, which is a fundamental part of the declaration.
Sources:
This aligns with New Zealand Police interview guidelines, where the proper understanding of the witness statement’s use and the consequences of falsehoods are emphasized for transparency and legal integrity.
Question 249
At interview, a suspect is cautioned for a second time when he reveals his involvement in another crime. He contacts his lawyer and then says he has been advised to claim his right to silence and will not answer any more questions. You should:
A. Proceed to question him and let the interview record show that he did not respond.
B. Inform him of the allegations against him and if he responds continue to question him.
C. Inform him of the allegations against him and record any response he may make.
C. Inform him of the allegations against him and record any response he may make.
Reasoning:
When a suspect asserts their right to silence, they are exercising a legal right, and it is important to respect that right. However, if the suspect decides to make a statement or respond, you must record any responses they provide. Here’s the breakdown of the actions:
Right to Silence: The suspect has the right to silence, but that right does not prevent you from informing them of the allegations, and it is important to record the fact that they were informed.
Recording Responses: If the suspect does respond after being informed of the allegations, it is crucial to record any response. This ensures that any information provided after the right to silence is claimed is documented and can be used appropriately in court.
Respect for Legal Process: When the suspect claims their right to silence, you must not compel them to speak further unless they waive that right or provide a response voluntarily. It’s important to respect the legal process by recording their choice and any subsequent statements made.
Why it’s not the other answers:
A. Proceed to question him and let the interview record show that he did not respond:
This option is incorrect because the suspect has invoked their right to silence. Proceeding to question him after he has asserted his right is contrary to that legal right. The right to silence must be respected, and it is not appropriate to continue questioning once that right is invoked.
B. Inform him of the allegations against him and if he responds continue to question him:
This option would be incorrect as it suggests continuing questioning, which could be seen as coercing the suspect to answer. Once the suspect claims the right to silence, you should respect that right and not continue questioning unless the suspect voluntarily provides information or waives the right to silence.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Interviewing Guidelines: These guidelines outline how to handle situations where a suspect claims their right to silence, ensuring their legal rights are respected.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: The Act defines the rights of suspects, including the right to silence, and how interviews should be conducted in compliance with the law.
Question 249
A woman dances with a man, Male A, who is wearing a red jersey and she gets red fibres on her top. Late in the evening she dances with another man Male B and some of the red fibres are transferred to the shirt of that man. The scenario is an example of secondary transfer between:
The woman and Male B
The woman and Male A
Male A and Male B
A. The woman and Male B
Reasoning:
In this scenario, secondary transfer refers to the transfer of material (in this case, red fibres) from one individual to another through an intermediary.
Primary Transfer: The woman dances with Male A, and red fibres from his red jersey are transferred to her top. This is the first transfer, known as primary transfer.
Secondary Transfer: Later, the woman dances with Male B. Some of the red fibres from her top are transferred to Male B’s shirt. This is secondary transfer because the fibres were first transferred to the woman from Male A and then transferred again to Male B through contact with the woman.
So, the secondary transfer is between the woman and Male B, not directly between Male A and Male B, as the fibres were first transferred to the woman from Male A.
Why it’s not the other answers:
B. The woman and Male A:
This is incorrect because the woman is the first person to receive the fibres from Male A (primary transfer), but secondary transfer refers to the further transfer from the woman to Male B.
C. Male A and Male B:
This option is incorrect because Male A did not directly transfer the fibres to Male B. The fibres first transferred to the woman and then to Male B, so the transfer between Male A and Male B is not direct.
Sources:
Forensic Science Principles: Secondary transfer is a concept often discussed in forensic science, particularly in the context of trace evidence. It helps in understanding how fibres, hairs, or other microscopic materials can be transferred between multiple people indirectly.
An exhibits envelope should be securely packaged by:
A. Taping the opening edges and securing with staples
B. Tape sealing all edges and signing across the tape
C. Closing edges with staples and then sealing with tape
B. Tape sealing all edges and signing across the tape.
Reasoning:
When dealing with exhibits, proper handling, sealing, and packaging are critical to maintaining the integrity of the evidence. Here’s why tape sealing all edges and signing across the tape is the correct method:
Tape sealing all edges: This ensures that the envelope is completely closed, preventing any tampering or accidental opening during handling or transport. It’s crucial to make sure the package is secure and that no evidence can be added or removed without detection.
Signing across the tape: This acts as a tamper-evident seal. By signing across the tape, the person packaging the exhibit is creating a visible marker that would indicate if the package has been opened. It is an essential step in maintaining the chain of custody, as it shows the person who sealed the envelope and provides a way to track any potential tampering.
Why it’s not the other answers:
Taping the opening edges and securing with staples: This is not ideal, as staples alone are not sufficient for sealing an exhibit securely. Staples can easily be removed, and there is no clear indication of tampering. Taping the edges without signing across the tape leaves the envelope open to the risk of tampering without detection.
Closing edges with staples and then sealing with tape: While this method might seem to provide some security, it still lacks the crucial step of signing across the tape. Without the signature, there is no clear tamper-evident seal that can demonstrate the exhibit has not been compromised.
Sources:
Evidence Handling Guidelines: Various guidelines and best practices in forensic and police work emphasize the importance of properly sealing evidence with both tape and signatures to prevent tampering and maintain the integrity of the exhibit for court purposes.
Question 252
You receive a call on a Saturday afternoon from a person saying there are cannabis plants growing in his next door neighbours’ backyard. You stand in the informant’s backyard and look over the fence into the neighbouring property. You can clearly see the cannabis plants. Do you require a surveillance warrant for your actions so far?
A. No, because you are lawfully on private property and not using a surveillance device.
B. No, because you are lawfully on private property and no warrant is required for any surveillance made from private property when you are present with consent of the owner.
C. Yes, because you are observing private property and the owner of that property has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A. No, because you are lawfully on private property and not using a surveillance device.
Reasoning:
The key factor in this situation is that you are lawfully on private property, and you are simply looking over the fence without using any surveillance device.
Surveillance warrants are typically required for the use of devices like cameras, listening devices, or GPS trackers to monitor someone’s private property. However, visual observation from a position where you have legal access (e.g., the informant’s backyard) does not require a surveillance warrant as long as you are not using any covert devices.
Why the other answers are incorrect:
B. No, because you are lawfully on private property and no warrant is required for any surveillance made from private property when you are present with consent of the owner.
While it’s true that you are lawfully present, the concept of a surveillance device isn’t directly relevant in this case. Consent isn’t a requirement for a visual observation; it only matters when discussing devices that capture data or record activities.
C. Yes, because you are observing private property and the owner of that property has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This statement would apply if you were using surveillance equipment to observe the property covertly, but in this case, you are simply observing from a lawful vantage point, which does not infringe on the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Source:
This conclusion is consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which requires a warrant for covert surveillance using devices but does not require one for visual observation from a lawful vantage point.
Question 253
When you are interviewing a male suspect under caution about a minor assault on his partner, he makes admissions about an unrelated serious assault on another person. What should you do?
A. Re-administer the caution before interviewing him about the new offence.
B. Shift the focus of the interview to the new offence as he is already under caution.
C. Re-administer the caution but continue to interview him about the original offence.
A. Re-administer the caution before interviewing him about the new offence.
Reasoning:
When a suspect makes admissions about a new, unrelated offence during an interview, the law requires that they are re-cautioned before questioning about the new offence. This is to ensure that the suspect’s rights are respected and they understand that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say may be used against them in relation to the new offence.
The initial caution applies to the original offence being investigated, and any further questioning about other offences requires a new caution specific to those offences.
Why the other answers are incorrect:
B. Shift the focus of the interview to the new offence as he is already under caution.
Although the suspect is already under caution for the initial offence, the law still requires that a new caution be given for questioning about the new offence. Simply shifting the focus of the interview without re-administering the caution would violate the suspect’s rights and could lead to the inadmissibility of the statements made about the new offence.
C. Re-administer the caution but continue to interview him about the original offence.
While it is correct to re-administer the caution for the new offence, continuing to interview the suspect about the original offence after re-administering the caution for the new offence would be inappropriate. Each offence should be treated separately to ensure the suspect’s rights are fully upheld.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Manual - Interviewing: This outlines the requirement to caution a suspect whenever new offences are introduced or when there is a shift in focus within the interview.
Evidence Act 2006: Sections 29 and 30 outline the importance of administering the caution when questioning a suspect about different offences.
Question 254
Jo Brown, heading home after a night in town, is kicked and punched by a group of offenders. As a result of the assault, Jo suffers severe bruising to his face but develops severe and ongoing depression and is unable to be left alone at night. In relation to Sections 188-193 of the Crimes Act 1961, Jo is considered to have been:
A. Disfigured.
B. Injured.
C. Maimed.
B. Injured.
Reasoning:
Under Sections 188-193 of the Crimes Act 1961, the term “injured” refers to any harm caused to a person’s body that does not necessarily involve permanent disfigurement or serious bodily harm. In Jo’s case, while he suffered severe bruising to his face and ongoing depression, these effects fall under the category of “injury” rather than “disfigurement” or “maiming,” since they don’t involve permanent physical alteration to his appearance or serious bodily harm.
Injury typically covers a broad range of harm, including psychological harm like depression, as seen in Jo’s case, which has caused significant distress and an inability to be left alone at night.
Why the other answers are incorrect:
A. Disfigured.
Disfigurement generally involves permanent physical alteration to a person’s appearance. Jo’s bruising and depression do not result in permanent disfigurement, so this option is not appropriate.
C. Maimed.
Maiming refers to a severe injury that results in permanent, serious impairment or loss of a body part or function. Jo’s injuries, while severe, do not fall into this category, as there is no permanent loss of function or impairment of a body part.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Sections 188-193: These sections define the legal terms related to bodily harm and injuries in the context of criminal offences. “Injury” encompasses a wide range of harm, including both physical and psychological harm.
Question 255
The meaning of the term ‘arbitrary detention’ as explained in the case R v Goodwin (1993) is:
A. When words or conduct of an officer cause a reasonable person to believe that they are not free to go.
B. When an officer tells a person in no uncertain words or conduct that they are not free to go.
C. When words or conduct of an officer cause a person to believe that he or she is not free to go.
The correct answer is A. When words or conduct of an officer cause a reasonable person to believe that they are not free to go.
Reasoning:
The case R v Goodwin (1993) clarified the concept of arbitrary detention, stating that it is when an officer’s words or conduct create a situation where a reasonable person would feel that they are not free to leave. It focuses on the perception of the individual involved, not just the officer’s intentions.
This is the key definition of arbitrary detention in the context of Section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects against being detained arbitrarily. The emphasis is on how a reasonable person would interpret the officer’s actions or words in determining whether they are being detained.
Why the other answers are incorrect:
B. When an officer tells a person in no uncertain words or conduct that they are not free to go.
This is too narrow and focuses only on explicit words or conduct from the officer. The test in R v Goodwin considers what a reasonable person would believe, not just what the officer says explicitly.
C. When words or conduct of an officer cause a person to believe that he or she is not free to go.
This option is similar to A, but it does not specify the “reasonable person” standard, which is critical in determining arbitrary detention. The focus in R v Goodwin is on how a reasonable person would interpret the situation.
Sources:
R v Goodwin (1993): This case defines arbitrary detention as when a reasonable person believes they are not free to leave due to the words or actions of the officer.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 22: This section provides the constitutional protection against arbitrary detention, emphasizing the need for a reasonable person standard.
Question 256
Under the Crown Law Prosecution Guidelines 2010, when the admissible evidence is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction, then Police must:
A. Apply the public interest test to determine if a prosecution is required.
B. Proceed to prosecute as it is clear an offence has been committed.
C. Identify the most appropriate and total number of charges to be laid.
A. Apply the public interest test to determine if a prosecution is required.
Reasoning:
Under the Crown Law Prosecution Guidelines 2010, once admissible evidence is deemed sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction, police are required to apply the public interest test. This test helps determine whether prosecuting the case is in the public’s best interest. Factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the age and health of the accused, and whether the prosecution will serve the general public good are all considered.
Public interest is a key component of prosecutorial decisions. The mere presence of sufficient evidence does not automatically mean that prosecution is warranted. The public interest test ensures that resources are used wisely and that the prosecution aligns with broader societal goals.
Why the other answers are incorrect:
B. Proceed to prosecute as it is clear an offence has been committed.
While it’s clear that an offence has been committed, the guidelines stress that the decision to prosecute should not be solely based on evidence but must also consider whether it is in the public’s interest. This answer overlooks the necessity of applying the public interest test.
C. Identify the most appropriate and total number of charges to be laid.
This is part of the decision-making process, but it comes after applying the public interest test. The most appropriate number of charges is determined after considering the strength of the evidence and the public interest.
Sources:
Crown Law Prosecution Guidelines 2010: The guidelines provide a framework for police and prosecutors to ensure fairness, consistency, and accountability in prosecutorial decisions. The public interest test is one of the core components.
Question 257
Paul is waiting at the bus stop talking on his cell phone. He is approached by Andrea and Jill who demand that he hand over the cell phone to them. Paul ignores them. Andrea then pushes Paul backwards and punches him in the face. Jill grabs the cell phone but Paul manages to get it back from her and the girls run away. Which of the following offences best describes Andrea’s criminal liability?
A. Attempted aggravated robbery.
B. Aggravated robbery.
C. Assault with intent to rob.
C. Assault with intent to rob.
Reasoning:
In this scenario, Andrea physically pushes Paul and punches him in the face, which constitutes an assault. However, it is Andrea’s intent that plays a crucial role in classifying the offence. The fact that Andrea, along with Jill, attempted to take Paul’s cell phone (although unsuccessful in the end) suggests that Andrea’s actions were aimed at facilitating the theft of the phone, hence the charge of assault with intent to rob.
The key point here is that Andrea’s actions were in the context of a robbery attempt, meaning the assault was not just for the sake of causing harm but was connected to a robbery (the theft of the cell phone). The law on assault with intent to rob covers situations where force or violence is used in the course of attempting a robbery, even if the robbery is not completed.
Why the other answers are incorrect:
A. Attempted aggravated robbery.
While the intention was to rob, attempted aggravated robbery would require the robbery to have been attempted with a weapon or threat of significant violence, or where serious harm occurred. In this case, there was no mention of any weapon being used or significant violence; thus, attempted aggravated robbery is not appropriate.
B. Aggravated robbery.
For aggravated robbery, there must be a significant element of violence or a weapon involved. Although Andrea punched Paul, there was no severe violence or weapon used. Therefore, aggravated robbery is not the most fitting charge here.
Sources:
Section 234 Crimes Act 1961: This section covers robbery, including cases where force is used to steal property.
Section 235 Crimes Act 1961: Covers assault with intent to rob, where an individual uses force or threats with the specific intent to steal property.
In this case, Andrea’s actions align with assault with intent to rob, making C the most appropriate charge.
Question 258
Shane visits his neighbour Brian and an argument develops between the two over the red T-shirt that Brian is wearing. Shane hits Brian in the face with a hammer, causing Brian to permanently lose the sight in his eye. When interviewed, Shane states that he only meant to hurt Brian and did not intend to make him blind. Can Shane claim that he acted in self-defence?
A. Yes, Shane feared for his personal safety because of the argument so his actions were in proportion with the predicament he was facing.
B. No, there was no force or imminent force from Brian to be resisted or prevented, and Shane’s response was not reasonable in the circumstances.
C. No, the defence of self-defence is not able to be claimed under Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961.
B. No, there was no force or imminent force from Brian to be resisted or prevented, and Shane’s response was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Reasoning:
Self-defence under New Zealand law is a defense available when a person is protecting themselves from an imminent threat of harm. The key elements for self-defence are:
Imminent Threat: The person must be under immediate or imminent threat of harm.
Proportionality: The level of force used in response must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced.
In this case:
Shane claims he was acting out of fear for his personal safety due to the argument with Brian. However, there is no indication that Brian posed an immediate physical threat to Shane that would justify the use of a hammer.
The level of force Shane used (hitting Brian in the face with a hammer, causing permanent blindness) is grossly disproportionate to any threat from Brian. It is an excessive response to a verbal argument.
Given that Brian did not pose a direct, immediate threat to Shane, Shane’s response was not reasonable, and thus self-defence cannot be claimed.
Why the other answers are incorrect:
A. Yes, Shane feared for his personal safety because of the argument so his actions were in proportion with the predicament he was facing.
While Shane may have feared for his safety, the level of force (a hammer strike causing permanent injury) was grossly disproportionate to any perceived threat. This response would not be deemed reasonable under the self-defence provisions of the law.
C. No, the defence of self-defence is not able to be claimed under Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961.
This answer is incorrect because Section 188 does not eliminate the possibility of a self-defence claim. Section 188 of the Crimes Act relates to the use of force causing injury, but it doesn’t prevent Shane from claiming self-defence. The issue here is the lack of proportionality and imminent threat, not the statutory elimination of self-defence.
Sources:
Section 48 Crimes Act 1961: Self-defence, including the requirement for proportionality and imminent threat.
Section 39 Crimes Act 1961: Deals with assault, including situations where excessive force might be applied in a response to an argument or conflict.
Given the circumstances, Shane’s use of a hammer to strike Brian in the face is an unreasonable response and is not justified under the defense of self-defence. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Question 259
The purpose of the victim notification register (VNR) is to:
A. Ensure the victim is notified about the offender’s status and location, so that the victim’s safety can be managed.
B. Ensure follow up support is provided for all victims of s29 sexual offences.
C. Ensure accountability for all agencies dealing with the victims throughout the judicial process.
A. Ensure the victim is notified about the offender’s status and location, so that the victim’s safety can be managed.
Reasoning: The Victim Notification Register (VNR) is a system designed to keep victims informed about the status and whereabouts of offenders, including information such as release dates, parole decisions, and other significant changes in the offender’s custody status. This system is primarily in place to help manage the safety and well-being of the victim by keeping them informed.
Why the other answers are not correct:
B. Ensure follow up support is provided for all victims of s29 sexual offences.
While follow-up support is important, the primary function of the VNR is to notify victims about the offender’s status. Support services may be provided by other agencies like Victim Support, but this is not the main purpose of the VNR itself.
C. Ensure accountability for all agencies dealing with the victims throughout the judicial process.
This is not the primary focus of the VNR. The VNR is not responsible for overseeing the actions of agencies involved in the case but rather for providing information to the victim regarding the offender’s status.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (Section 29)
New Zealand Police Victim Notification Register (VNR) guidelines.
Question 260
Steve goes to his local pub where after a few drinks he gets into an argument with his friend Gerry. Gerry becomes so enraged with Steve that he yells out “you really deserve this” and smashes his glass twice into Steve’s face causing the glass to shatter. Steve suffers severe lacerations to his cheek and lip and a fractured eye socket. What is the most appropriate Crimes Act 1961 assault offence?
A. Injuring with intent (section 189(1)).
B. Wounding with intent (section 188(1)).
C. Assault with a weapon (section 202C).
B. Wounding with intent (section 188(1)).
Reasoning: Wounding with intent under Section 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 applies when a person intentionally causes another person to suffer a wound. In this case, Gerry’s actions of smashing the glass into Steve’s face, causing significant injuries including a fractured eye socket, clearly fit the definition of wounding. Additionally, the intentional nature of the assault (as evidenced by the statement “you really deserve this”) further supports the applicability of this charge.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Injuring with intent (section 189(1))
Section 189(1) refers to injuring someone with intent to cause harm but without the injury reaching the level of a wound. While Steve’s injuries are severe, they involve a wound (a cut or break in the skin) due to the glass shattering, which qualifies as wounding rather than just injury.
C. Assault with a weapon (section 202C)
Section 202C relates to assault using a weapon, which typically refers to the use of a weapon with the intent to cause harm. While a glass can be considered a weapon, the more appropriate charge in this situation is “wounding with intent” because it involves a significant injury (a wound) rather than just an assault with a weapon.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Sections 188(1) (Wounding with intent) and 189(1) (Injuring with intent)
Crimes Act 1961, Section 202C (Assault with a weapon)
Question 261
You have a search warrant to enter and search a flat belonging to a woman who you have RGTB has stolen an iPod and other small electronic items. When you arrive, the woman and her two flatmates are at the address. You detain them under s118 (Powers of detention incidental to powers to search places and vehicles). Can you search the woman and her flatmates under s119? (Powers of search by person who has power of arrest)
A. Yes, as s119 permits a search of anyone found at the place when you have RGTB the evidential material will be found.
B. No, you cannot search the flatmates without first exercising a power of arrest.
C. No, you may only search the woman as you have RGTB you will find the evidential material on her.
A. Yes, as s119 permits a search of anyone found at the place when you have RGTB the evidential material will be found.
Reasoning: Section 119 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows for the search of any person found at the place if there are reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) that evidential material relevant to the investigation will be found on their person. In this case, the woman and her flatmates are at the address where the search warrant is being executed, and if you have RGTB that they may possess or be in control of evidential material related to the stolen items (iPod and other electronics), you can search them.
Why the other answers are not correct:
B. No, you cannot search the flatmates without first exercising a power of arrest. This is incorrect. Section 119 does not require that the flatmates be arrested first to be searched. The power to search is based on the location and RGTB that they may have evidential material, not on arrest.
C. No, you may only search the woman as you have RGTB you will find the evidential material on her. This is incorrect. While you may have RGTB that the woman is in possession of the evidential material, Section 119 allows you to search anyone at the location where the search warrant is being executed if there are RGTB that they may possess relevant evidence, not just the individual you have RGTB about.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Sections 118 and 119
Question 262
A witness with intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairment:
A. Should not be called upon to perform as a reliable witness in court.
B. Requires a support person in all interaction with police and the court.
C. Is a witness entitled to special consideration from police and others.
C. Is a witness entitled to special consideration from police and others.
Reasoning: A witness with intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairment is entitled to special consideration under the law. This ensures they are treated with the care and support necessary for them to participate in the justice process effectively. Special consideration might involve the provision of support people, adjustments in questioning, or using alternative methods for giving evidence, but it does not mean the person is automatically unreliable as a witness.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Should not be called upon to perform as a reliable witness in court. This is incorrect because individuals with intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairments can still be reliable witnesses with the right support and accommodations. The presence of an impairment does not automatically disqualify someone from being a witness.
B. Requires a support person in all interaction with police and the court. While it is common and recommended for vulnerable witnesses to have a support person, it is not always legally required in every interaction. Special consideration means flexibility and taking into account the needs of the witness, not a blanket rule of needing a support person at all times.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 10 (Special considerations for vulnerable witnesses)
New Zealand Police Policy on Vulnerable Witnesses
Question 263
You are interviewing an offender arrested for ‘receiving’. While attempting to establish the identity of the original thief, the offender begins to tell conflicting accounts. You now decide to change interview styles and begin to very strongly put questions to him demanding explanations and answers to your questions. He eventually gives the identity of the thief and other evidence against himself. Would the above evidence by your offender be admissible in Court?
A. Yes, because demanding answers to questions and using your personality when interviewing is legitimate.
B. No, because the offender was in custody and questions must not amount to cross-examination.
C. No, once a person has been arrested for an offence they cannot be interviewed about that original offence.
B. No, because the offender was in custody and questions must not amount to cross-examination.
Reasoning: In this scenario, the offender is in custody, and the change in interview style to aggressively demand answers is inappropriate. The law requires that interviews must not cross the line into coercion, and interrogating the suspect too aggressively can make the evidence inadmissible. Once someone is in custody, the rights surrounding their questioning are stricter to prevent undue pressure. The approach described here could be seen as leading to an unfair or unreliable confession.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Yes, because demanding answers to questions and using your personality when interviewing is legitimate. This is incorrect because while interviewing styles may vary, demanding answers in a very aggressive manner can lead to an unlawful interview that could be considered coercive, making any evidence obtained inadmissible. The law is clear on ensuring suspects’ rights are protected, especially in custody.
C. No, once a person has been arrested for an offence they cannot be interviewed about that original offence. This is incorrect. A person can be interviewed about the original offence, provided they have been cautioned appropriately and the interview complies with legal standards. However, the change in the style of questioning in this scenario raises concerns about the fairness of the process.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Interviewing Guidelines
Evidence Act 2006, Section 28 (Admissibility of Evidence)
New Zealand Law Commission Report on Confessions
Question 264
When packaging an exhibit in a windowed paper bag or Kleensak you must:
A. Close the bag with ties so that contents are accessible.
B. Close the bag with tape and then staple to secure.
C. Fold over the top of the bag 2-3 times and seal with tape.
C. Fold over the top of the bag 2-3 times and seal with tape.
Reasoning: When packaging an exhibit in a windowed paper bag or Kleensak, it is crucial to securely close the bag to maintain the integrity of the evidence. Folding the top 2-3 times and sealing it with tape ensures that the contents are securely enclosed, preventing any tampering or contamination. This method also ensures that the bag remains tamper-evident, which is essential for maintaining the chain of custody.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. Close the bag with ties so that contents are accessible. While this might seem like a simple method, it does not fully secure the contents and can leave the evidence vulnerable to tampering. The purpose of sealing the bag is to ensure that the contents are protected and cannot be accessed without leaving evidence of tampering.
B. Close the bag with tape and then staple to secure. This method introduces an additional point of potential contamination. Staples could cause damage to the contents, and they are not a recommended method of sealing exhibits, as they can be easily removed or tampered with without leaving visible evidence.
Sources:
New Zealand Police guidelines on evidence handling and packaging.
Forensic best practices for handling exhibits to maintain the integrity and chain of custody.
Question 265
Police are responsible for informing a victim of a section 29 sexual offence that:
A. To ensure their anonymity, their name will not be revealed in any documents to the court.
B. Their court case could be arduous because intent is difficult to prove in any sexual offence.
C. They have rights in legislation that protect their privacy throughout court proceedings and reporting.
C. They have rights in legislation that protect their privacy throughout court proceedings and reporting.
Reasoning: Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, victims of sexual offences, including Section 29 offences, have the right to be informed about their rights to privacy and protection throughout the legal proceedings. This includes the right to confidentiality in relation to their identity and details about the case. This provision ensures that victims’ privacy is safeguarded, especially in sensitive sexual offence cases, where their personal information is protected during court proceedings and related processes.
Why the other answers are not correct:
A. To ensure their anonymity, their name will not be revealed in any documents to the court. While this is true to some extent, as victims of certain sexual offences may have their name protected, the broader protection involves privacy regarding their identity and personal details, not just anonymity in documents. This is covered under the broader legislative protection provided to victims, which includes but is not limited to their name.
B. Their court case could be arduous because intent is difficult to prove in any sexual offence. This statement is misleading and not a responsibility of the police to inform the victim of. Police should inform victims of their rights to protection, not the specific difficulties of proving intent, as this is a matter for the legal process to handle. Victims should be provided with support and legal advice regarding the case but not be informed about the potential challenges in proving intent unless it is in the context of a legal consultation.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 24 (Protection of privacy).
New Zealand Police guidelines and best practices for victim support in sexual offence cases.
Question 266
One night you attend an aggravated burglary. Witnesses give a detailed description of the car the offender left in. You QV the registration number and identify an address for the vehicle. At the address, you locate the vehicle parked in the driveway beside the house. The house is in darkness and the offender is nowhere in sight. Can you now undertake a warrantless search of the vehicle (s17) for the weapon used?
A. Yes, because there are RGTB that evidential material will be CADD.
B. No, because the car that may contain evidential material is not in a public place.
C. Yes, because you have RGTB that the evidential material is in the car.
B. No, because the car that may contain evidential material is not in a public place.
Question 267
Which of the following tasks is the responsibility of the exhibits officer at a serious crime scene?
A. Managing the receipt, control and storage of all exhibits.
B. Establishing the relevance of an exhibit to the enquiry.
C. Analysing exhibits for forensic material.
A. Managing the receipt, control and storage of all exhibits.
Reasoning: The exhibits officer is primarily responsible for managing the receipt, control, and storage of exhibits collected during an investigation. This includes ensuring that all exhibits are properly documented, secured, and stored in accordance with protocols to preserve their integrity and prevent tampering or contamination.
Why the other answers are not correct:
B. Establishing the relevance of an exhibit to the enquiry. This is not the responsibility of the exhibits officer. The relevance of exhibits is typically determined by the investigating officers or the prosecution team based on the investigative context. The exhibits officer handles the logistics of storing and managing the evidence.
C. Analyzing exhibits for forensic material. This task falls under the responsibility of forensic specialists, such as forensic scientists or crime scene investigators, not the exhibits officer. While the exhibits officer handles the physical management of evidence, forensic analysis is performed by qualified experts in forensic labs.
Sources:
New Zealand Police guidelines on the role and responsibilities of exhibits officers.
New Zealand Police Manual, which outlines the responsibilities of officers at crime scenes, including exhibits management.
Question 268
John Smith is a well-known receiver of stolen property. You apply for a search warrant to search his residential address. There are no extenuating circumstances that will prevent your execution of the warrant without delay. What is the normal period the warrant will be valid for?
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 21 days
B. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 30 days
C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days
C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days √ (30 days if justified)
Chat GPT:
B. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 30 days
Reasoning:
In New Zealand, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 69(2), the maximum period that a search warrant is valid for is typically up to 30 days, but this period can be adjusted by the issuing officer based on the specifics of the application. The issuing officer must determine the appropriate period, but in general, a search warrant will be valid for up to 30 days unless the officer specifies a shorter duration.
Why it’s not the other options:
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 21 days: This is incorrect as the standard period for a search warrant can extend up to 30 days, not 21, unless specified otherwise by the issuing officer.
C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days: This is also incorrect. While the issuing officer can decide on a shorter duration, the standard and maximum period is 30 days.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 69(2)
Question 269
If during an interview you make an unconditional undertaking not to use an “off the record” statement in evidence, it is likely the court will: P63
A. Allow you discretion whether or not to divulge the “off the record” statement
B. Make you honour the promise and rule the evidence as inadmissible
C. Require you to give evidence including the “off the record” statement
B. Make you honour the promise and rule the evidence as inadmissible
Reasoning:
When a statement is made “off the record” and there is an unconditional undertaking given not to use it in evidence, the court is likely to enforce that promise and deem the statement inadmissible. This is because the principle of fairness in legal proceedings means that a person should not be compelled to speak or give information that they understood would not be used against them in court.
Why it’s not the other options:
A. Allow you discretion whether or not to divulge the “off the record” statement: This is incorrect because the undertaking made by the interviewer to not use the “off the record” statement is typically enforceable by the court. The court is unlikely to leave this to the discretion of the interviewer.
C. Require you to give evidence including the “off the record” statement: This is incorrect because the court will generally respect an agreement made during the interview not to use the “off the record” statement. The purpose of such an agreement is to protect the integrity of the interview process and ensure fairness.
Sources:
This principle is supported by the rules of evidence and practice in relation to “off the record” statements, as explained in the Evidence Act and relevant court rulings. Specifically, the courts are generally guided by fairness and integrity in interviews, particularly where an undertaking has been given that the statement will not be used.
Question 270
Care must be taken in Police interaction with a witness because:
A. A witness will assist the interviewer to build a case against a suspect and subsequently give useful evidence
B. A witness’s needs and individual circumstances must be taken into account by an interviewer
C. A witness is a vulnerable person and must be fairly treated by an interviewer to get the best from them
B. A witness’s needs and individual circumstances must be taken into account by an interviewer.
Reasoning: The proper treatment of witnesses is critical to ensure that their testimony is reliable and that they are not unduly influenced. When interacting with witnesses, an interviewer must consider the individual needs and circumstances of the witness, which might include their mental health, age, language barriers, or level of understanding. This ensures that the witness can give their best and most accurate account.
Why it’s not the other options:
A. A witness will assist the interviewer to build a case against a suspect and subsequently give useful evidence: While this statement is true, it focuses on the outcome of the interaction rather than the proper treatment of the witness. The primary focus should be on ensuring the witness’s needs are taken into account during the interview to gather accurate information.
C. A witness is a vulnerable person and must be fairly treated by an interviewer to get the best from them: This is also true but is a broader statement. Option B is more specific in highlighting the importance of considering a witness’s individual circumstances.
Sources:
This is supported by best practice guidelines and the principles in the Police Manual and various laws related to the treatment of vulnerable witnesses. This ensures that interviews are conducted ethically, and the witness’s needs are met, leading to more accurate and useful testimony.
Question 271
Stan sees Nigel walking along the road with Gloria, Stan’s ex-girlfriend. Stan is furious. He steps in front of them and says menacingly, “Get off my street or you’ll get this.” Gloria and Nigel are frightened. Stan then raises a fist and demonstrates a punching movement. Can Stan be charged with assault?
A. Yes - because Bert and Gloria have reason to believe Stan can harm them
B. No - because Stan has not actually applied any force to Bert or Gloria
C. Yes - because to threaten another is an indirect application of force
A. Yes - because Bert and Gloria have reason to believe Stan can harm them
Question 272
Your risk assessment leads you to decide there is no time to apply for a search warrant. As evidential material will be CADD, you undertake an s15 search of a caravan for a machete used in an aggravated wounding. The caravan occupants are present. Before entering the caravan, you must identify yourself and:
A. Announce your intention to enter and search and state the name and section of the Act
B. Announce your intention to enter and search giving the reason for your search and the name of the Act
C. Announce your intention to search giving your reason, stating the section and name of the Act
Answer: B. Announce your intention to enter and search giving the reason for your search and the name of the Act.
Reasoning
Under Section 15 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, an officer may conduct a warrantless search of a place or vehicle for evidential material if there are reasonable grounds to believe that:
An offence punishable by imprisonment has been committed, and
The evidential material is at risk of being concealed, altered, damaged, or destroyed (CADD) if the search is delayed.
When occupants are present, Section 131 of the Act requires the officer to:
Identify themselves (e.g., “I am Constable X, New Zealand Police”).
Announce their intention to enter and search, including the name of the Act (Search and Surveillance Act 2012).
Give the reason for the search (e.g., “We believe there is a machete used in an aggravated wounding on the premises”).
While it may be considered best practice in some cases to include the specific section (e.g., s15 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012), the Act primarily requires naming the legislation and the reason for the search, so the occupants understand the legal authority under which the search is being carried out.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Announce your intention to enter and search and state the name and section of the Act:
While naming the section can be good practice, it’s not strictly required to quote the specific section for an on-the-spot announcement. The legislation itself (the name of the Act) and the reason for the search are the essentials.
C. Announce your intention to search giving your reason, stating the section and name of the Act:
Although this may exceed the legal requirements (and is certainly not wrong to be that specific), the typical instruction under Section 131 is to provide the name of the Act and the reason for the search. Stating the specific section (e.g., s15) is not strictly mandated in every case, so Option B is the most appropriate and succinct formulation aligned with standard police practice.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Sections 15 and 131: Governs warrantless powers to search when evidence is at risk (CADD) and the obligations for announcing a search.
New Zealand Police Manual: Emphasizes the need to identify oneself, provide the reason for the search, and cite the legislation when the occupant is present.
Question 273
Can you withhold personal property seized under s11 when a person is released from custody?
A. Yes, you can withhold any property if, in your opinion, it may be given in evidence in proceedings for the charge brought against the person
B. No, you can remove personal property from a person when searching them under s11 and must return it when they are released
C. No, you can withhold all property from a person who is being released for as long as you deem necessary under the circumstances
Answer: A. Yes, you can withhold any property if, in your opinion, it may be given in evidence in proceedings for the charge brought against the person.
Reasoning
Under Section 11 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (and relevant associated provisions), when a person is taken into custody, police may seize personal property for safekeeping or evidential purposes. If the person is later released from custody, the property must typically be returned unless it is required as evidence in ongoing or forthcoming legal proceedings.
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the seized property may be used as evidence in a prosecution, the police are entitled to retain it.
If the property is not needed as evidence, then it must be returned to the individual upon release.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. No, you can remove personal property from a person when searching them under s11 and must return it when they are released.
This statement omits the crucial aspect of retaining items that are needed for evidential purposes. If the property seized could be used as evidence, it must be kept despite the person being released.
C. No, you can withhold all property from a person who is being released for as long as you deem necessary under the circumstances.
This is incorrect because police cannot arbitrarily withhold someone’s property. Any decision to keep property has to be tied to its possible evidential value or other lawful criteria.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Sections 11, 13 – Outlines the powers to seize and retain property taken from an arrested or detained person.
New Zealand Police Manual – Procedures regarding the detention of property and the obligation to return it unless required as evidence.
Hence, A is correct because it accurately reflects the exception allowing police to withhold property if it may be required for evidential purposes.
Question 274
At 1400 hours, you gave Jimmy (aged 15) his rights pursuant to section 215 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. At 1445 hours, he asks you whether he has to answer the question you just asked him. The most appropriate thing for you to do is:
A. Advise him again of all his rights pursuant to section 215 of the CYPF Act.
B. Advise him he must continue to answer all questions put to him.
C. Advise him that he may withdraw his consent to make a statement at any time
Answer: C. Advise him that he may withdraw his consent to make a statement at any time.
Reasoning
Under Section 215 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, when interviewing a young person (aged under 17) regarding an offence, police must inform them of their rights, including the right to remain silent. If, after some time has passed, the young person asks whether they must answer a question, the most appropriate response is to remind them that they can withdraw consent to make a statement at any time.
A. Advise him again of all his rights pursuant to section 215 of the CYPF Act.
While re-advising him of all his rights might not be inappropriate, it is not strictly necessary unless there is a significant change in the situation or enough time has passed to warrant re-cautioning. The key is ensuring the youth knows he does not have to answer questions if he does not wish to continue.
B. Advise him he must continue to answer all questions put to him.
This is incorrect because a young person, like any suspect, has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to answer all questions.
Conclusion
By choosing C—advising the young person that he may withdraw his consent to make a statement at any time—the interviewer respects his right to silence under Section 215 of the CYPF Act, ensuring the interview remains voluntary and compliant with legal standards.
Question 275
When completing a search warrant application, you must describe: (Intranet: Search Warrant)
A. The belief of the Police that the warrant is justified and the facts on which this is based
B. The belief of the Approving Officer that the warrant is justified and the facts on which this is based
C. Your own personal belief that the warrant is justified and the facts on which this is based
Answer: C. Your own personal belief that the warrant is justified and the facts on which this is based.
Reasoning
When you apply for a search warrant, you are required to provide your own personal belief—as the applicant—regarding why the warrant is necessary. This includes describing:
The offence believed to have been committed, and
The facts and evidence (grounds) you possess that form the reasonable grounds to suspect that the place to be searched contains relevant evidential material.
It’s not about a generic “Police belief” or the “Approving Officer’s belief,” but rather the applicant’s (the person applying for the warrant) own reasonable grounds for seeking the warrant, including the information and evidence that led them to this conclusion.
Why the other options are incorrect
A. The belief of the Police that the warrant is justified and the facts on which this is based
While you are a member of the Police, the warrant application is specifically about your grounds for believing the warrant is necessary, not a general “police-wide” belief. The application must reflect the individual applicant’s reasonable grounds, based on the evidence you hold.
B. The belief of the Approving Officer that the warrant is justified and the facts on which this is based
The approving officer (often a judge or issuing officer) evaluates your application and makes a decision. They do not themselves hold the belief prior to reviewing your evidence. Your application must contain your own belief and the facts supporting it, for the issuing officer to assess.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Outlines the requirements for applying for and issuing search warrants.
New Zealand Police Manual (Search Warrant Guidance): Emphasizes that the applicant must state their own reasonable grounds and belief, supported by facts.
Hence, Option C is correct because the applicant must describe their own personal belief as to why the search warrant is justified and present the factual basis for that belief.
Question 276
Probing or closed questions are ones that encourage only a relatively small range of responses, usually a short word or phrase. According to the material in the Investigative Interviewing doctrine, which of the following statements about probing questions would be incorrect?
A. Probing questions are the preferred way to start a suspect interview.
B. Probing questions usually begin with what, why, when, where, who, and how.
C. Probing questions are used to get detail from the suspect or witness.
Answer: A. Probing questions are the preferred way to start a suspect interview.
Reasoning
In the Investigative Interviewing doctrine, particularly for suspect interviews, the recommended practice is to begin with open-ended questions rather than probing or closed questions. Open-ended questions encourage a broader and more detailed response, allowing the interviewer to gather a comprehensive account before narrowing down with probing or closed questions for clarity or detail.
Therefore, the statement that “probing questions are the preferred way to start a suspect interview” is incorrect, as the doctrine advises starting with open questions to avoid leading the suspect or limiting their response early on.
Why the other options are correct:
B. Probing questions usually begin with what, why, when, where, who, and how.
Although these words can be used in broader, open-ended questions as well, probing questions can also include them when seeking more specific details. These are typical words to explore more detail, but the scope of the question can still be narrower than a fully open question.
C. Probing questions are used to get detail from the suspect or witness.
This is correct. Once a broad account has been obtained (usually through open-ended questions), probing or closed questions help clarify specific points, timelines, or inconsistencies in the interviewee’s statement.
Sources:
New Zealand Police ‘Investigative Interviewing’ Guidance: Emphasizes beginning with open questions to obtain a free recall of events, followed by probing questions for clarification.
Question 277
Karen (16) is the rear seat passenger in a car driven at speed by her friend Shane (17), who holds a restricted driver’s licence. Shane fails to give way at a busy intersection and collides with another vehicle. Following the impact, his car spins out of control and crashes through the fence of John’s house near the intersection. Both youths are injured, and Karen, who is not wearing a seat belt, is thrown from the vehicle, suffering severe head injuries that will require considerable rehabilitation. Sam (27), the driver of the other car, escapes with minor cuts and bruises, but his car is written off. Anaru (4), who was riding his tricycle on the footpath, is severely frightened. The crash is another in a series of vehicle accidents at the intersection, and the neighbouring community is fearful of further injuries or a road death. Identify the victim(s) in the above incident.
A. Karen, Sam, Anaru, their families, and the concerned neighbours.
B. Karen, Shane, Sam, John, and the neighbours.
C. Karen, Sam, John, Anaru, and their families.
Answer:
C. Karen, Sam, John, Anaru, and their families.
Reasoning
Under New Zealand law and practice, a victim generally includes any person who suffers physical injury, emotional harm, or property damage from an incident, as well as the immediate family of someone who has suffered such harm. Here is how each person or group in the scenario qualifies:
Karen (16):
Sustains severe head injuries that require extensive medical care (physical harm).
Sam (27):
Suffers minor cuts and bruises (physical harm), and his car is written off (property loss).
John:
Experiences property damage when Shane’s car smashes through his fence.
Anaru (4):
Becomes severely frightened, indicating emotional harm.
Their Families:
The families of Karen, Sam, John, and Anaru may experience secondary harm or stress due to their loved ones’ physical or emotional injuries or property damage. This aligns with definitions of victim support, which include the immediate family members of direct victims in serious cases.
In contrast, while the neighboring community is fearful of further accidents, they have not experienced direct harm in this specific incident; thus, they do not meet the criteria for being direct victims here.
Why It’s Not the Other Answers
A. Karen, Sam, Anaru, their families, and the concerned neighbours.
The “concerned neighbours” are fearful of potential future harm but did not suffer direct harm themselves—thus they are not considered “victims” in the strict sense under the Victims’ Rights Act or common definitions of victim status.
B. Karen, Shane, Sam, John, and the neighbours.
While Shane was driving recklessly and got injured, the law generally does not classify an at-fault driver in these circumstances as a “victim.” The “concerned neighbours,” as mentioned, are not direct victims because they did not sustain any physical, emotional, or property damage in this specific incident.
Hence, C best captures all those who have directly suffered from the incident (physical injuries, property damage, or emotional harm), plus their families who share in the emotional or financial burden.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (NZ): Outlines who qualifies as a ‘victim’ and includes family members of persons who have suffered significant harm.
New Zealand Police Manual – Victims and Witnesses: Clarifies that direct victims or family/whānau of a person harmed are considered victims, but does not extend to broader community concerns unless there is direct harm.
Therefore, C. Karen, Sam, John, Anaru, and their families is the correct choice.Anaru, and their families.
Question 278
You wish to install a 24-hour camera across the road from a suspected tinnie house to record the comings and goings at the front door. Which of the following do you need?
A. No warrant is needed as the camera is being installed on private property by consent of the owner of that property.
B. Search Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
C. Surveillance Device Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
Answer: C. Surveillance Device Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
Reasoning
Placing a 24-hour camera to monitor the comings and goings at a suspected tinnie house involves visual surveillance of private property, which is considered a form of surveillance device usage under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. If you plan to record continuously, you are not simply observing in passing but rather installing a device for extended monitoring, which requires a surveillance device warrant.
Surveillance Device Warrant:
Needed when using video or electronic devices for continuous monitoring of activities on private property where the subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Ensures that the surveillance is lawful, proportionate, and meets the threshold for intruding on someone’s privacy.
Why Not the Other Answers?
A. No warrant is needed as the camera is being installed on private property by consent of the owner of that property.
Even if you have the property owner’s consent to place a camera, continuous recording of someone else’s private property (the suspected tinnie house across the street) typically requires a surveillance device warrant to comply with privacy and legal standards.
B. Search Warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.
A search warrant authorizes searching a place or vehicle for evidential material. It does not cover ongoing video surveillance.
Installing a continuous camera to watch the front door is considered surveillance, not a one-time search.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012:
Part 3 outlines the requirements for using surveillance devices, including the need for a warrant when conducting ongoing or intrusive video surveillance.
New Zealand Police Manual:
Provides guidelines on the legal thresholds and processes for applying for surveillance device warrants, ensuring any video or electronic surveillance aligns with statutory requirements.
In summary, C is correct because installing a long-term camera to monitor a property’s front door is a form of visual surveillance requiring a surveillance device warrant under New Zealand law.
Question 279
A good charging decision is made when the charges chosen adequately reflect the nature and extent of the criminal conduct and…
A. The prosecution is provided with sufficient admissible evidence.
B. The court is provided with an appropriate basis for sentence.
C. The defence is provided with the total evidence at disclosure.
Answer: B. The court is provided with an appropriate basis for sentence.
Reasoning
Under Crown Law Prosecution Guidelines, a good charging decision involves choosing charges that:
Reflect the nature and extent of the criminal conduct, and
Provide the court with an appropriate basis for sentence.
This means the charges must not only accurately match the seriousness of the offence but also ensure that if the defendant is convicted, the judge is equipped to impose a sentence that corresponds to the gravity of the wrongdoing.
Why not the other answers?
A. The prosecution is provided with sufficient admissible evidence.
Having sufficient admissible evidence is crucial before any charges are laid, but it is not the second criterion for a “good charging decision.” The first test (evidential test) must be met before the public interest and appropriate charge selection are considered.
C. The defence is provided with the total evidence at disclosure.
While disclosure obligations mean the defence will receive evidence, this is not the measure of whether a good charging decision has been made. Disclosure is a separate procedural requirement rather than a criterion for deciding if a charge accurately reflects the nature and extent of the criminal conduct.
Sources
Crown Law Prosecution Guidelines: Outlines that charges should reflect the criminality and allow for sentencing that corresponds to the offence’s seriousness.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: Governs the process of charging and prosecuting offences in New Zealand.
Question 280
A serious assault has occurred at a private party. When you arrive at the scene, you wish to speak to the patrons about the assault. In the given circumstances, Police behaviour must reflect Guideline 1 of the Chief Justice Practice Note, which is:
A. You may arrest a person who refuses to answer your questions for obstruction.
B. You must not suggest through words or actions that a person must answer your questions.
C. You can remind a person who refuses to answer your questions that they can be legally penalised.
Answer:
B. You must not suggest through words or actions that a person must answer your questions.
Reasoning
Guideline 1 of the Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning underscores the importance of respecting an individual’s right to silence and ensuring that any statements or answers given are voluntary. In this scenario, when speaking to patrons of a private party regarding a serious assault, the Police must:
Avoid implying—through either words or actions—that the patrons are obliged to answer questions.
Ensure that any information provided by the patrons is given freely and not under the impression that they must speak to the Police.
Hence, the correct guideline is to not suggest they must answer questions.
Why It’s Not the Other Answers
A. You may arrest a person who refuses to answer your questions for obstruction.
Refusing to answer police questions does not, by itself, constitute obstruction in most circumstances. People generally have the right to remain silent, and failing to answer questions typically does not justify an arrest for obstruction.
C. You can remind a person who refuses to answer your questions that they can be legally penalised.
Threatening or implying legal penalty for refusing to answer questions directly conflicts with a person’s right to silence and is disallowed by the Practice Note. It would undermine the voluntariness of the statements provided.
Sources
Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning (Guideline 1): Emphasizes that officers must not compel or coerce individuals to answer questions and must avoid language or conduct suggesting the individual has no choice but to respond.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Contains provisions protecting the right against self-incrimination and the right to silence.
Question 281
You have arrested an adult male and want to interview him further. Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. You can interview him for a short time only, as he must be fairly and reasonably treated while in custody.
B. You can interview him at length to gather any evidence with which to progress the charge against him.
C. You can interview him while being mindful of the need to proceed to court as soon as possible.
Answer: C. You can interview him while being mindful of the need to proceed to court as soon as possible.
Reasoning
When an adult male is under arrest, police may interview him about the relevant offence, provided:
The interview is conducted fairly and reasonably in accordance with the suspect’s legal rights.
The suspect is brought before the court as soon as practicable, consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Criminal Procedure Act 2011 requirements.
The length and scope of the interview must remain reasonable—i.e., not unduly lengthy or oppressive.
Thus, C correctly captures the balance between gathering information through an interview and ensuring the suspect is processed judicially without undue delay.
Why not the other answers?
A. You can interview him for a short time only, as he must be fairly and reasonably treated while in custody.
While fairness and reasonable treatment are crucial, the law does not specify a “short time only” limit. What matters is the interview must not be oppressive or unreasonably prolonged, and the suspect should be brought to court “as soon as reasonably practicable.”
B. You can interview him at length to gather any evidence with which to progress the charge against him.
This overlooks the statutory obligation to promptly bring the arrested individual before a court. An overly long interview could be seen as infringing upon the suspect’s rights or delaying court proceedings unnecessarily.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Requires that arrested or detained persons be brought before a court “as soon as possible.”
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Emphasizes fairness and reasonableness in suspect interviews.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011: Reinforces the need for timely court appearances and sets expectations for how detained individuals must be treated.
Hence, Option C most accurately reflects the correct approach to interviewing a suspect post-arrest.
Question 282
When conducting a suspect interview at the police station, you are informed that a lawyer has arrived saying she is to act for the suspect and asking to see him. The suspect has given you no indication that he wishes to speak to a lawyer. What action should you take?
A. Ensure the lawyer is told the suspect has not asked for a lawyer and continue.
B. Ask the suspect if he wants a lawyer, and if not, advise the lawyer of that fact.
C. Tell the suspect the lawyer is at the station to see him and act on the suspect’s wishes.
Answer: C. Tell the suspect the lawyer is at the station to see him and act on the suspect’s wishes.
Reasoning
Under New Zealand law (including the Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23**, and the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning), if a lawyer arrives expressing a wish to represent the suspect, the police must inform the suspect of that fact. Even if the suspect has given no prior indication that they want to speak to a lawyer, the arrival of a lawyer who says they represent them changes the circumstances. The suspect should be made aware and asked what they wish to do. If the suspect decides to speak with the lawyer, the interview should be paused until that consultation has occurred.
Hence, you must respect the suspect’s right to counsel by:
Informing the suspect the lawyer is there.
Allowing the suspect to decide whether they want to speak with them.
Why It’s Not the Other Options
A. Ensure the lawyer is told the suspect has not asked for a lawyer and continue.
This is inappropriate because it ignores the suspect’s right to be informed that a lawyer is present and able to represent them, even if they have not directly requested counsel before. Simply continuing the interview disregards the suspect’s potential change in circumstances regarding legal representation.
B. Ask the suspect if he wants a lawyer, and if not, advise the lawyer of that fact.
While asking the suspect about wanting a lawyer is part of the process, this option doesn’t fully address the need to inform them that a lawyer is already at the station and available to speak with them. The correct approach is to tell the suspect that the lawyer is present, then act on the suspect’s wishes, not just to ask if they want a lawyer in general.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23(1)(b): Right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Emphasizes informing the suspect of legal counsel availability and respecting their wishes regarding representation.
Thus, C is correct because it ensures the suspect’s right to counsel is upheld by informing them of the lawyer’s presence and letting the suspect decide how to proceed.
Question 283
During a crime scene examination you find a small amount of a dry substance in a jar. To determine if it is to be collected for analysis you can:
A. Smell and taste the substance.
B. Examine it with gloved hands.
C. Roll it on your fingertips and sniff it.
B. Examine it with gloved hands.
Reasoning
When discovering an unknown substance at a crime scene, safety protocols and forensic best practices must be followed. The correct approach is to examine it with gloved hands to avoid contamination or accidental ingestion or inhalation of potentially harmful material.
Gloved hands protect both the person handling the evidence and the substance itself, ensuring minimal risk of contamination or harm.
Smelling or tasting an unknown substance is unsafe and not recommended under any circumstance.
Rolling it on fingertips and sniffing the substance also presents a health hazard and can compromise the integrity of the evidence.
Why Not the Other Answers?
A. Smell and taste the substance.
This is highly inadvisable as many substances can be toxic, and tasting or smelling them directly could put the handler in danger. It also risks contaminating or altering the evidence.
C. Roll it on your fingertips and sniff it.
Similarly, sniffing an unknown substance or rolling it on unprotected fingertips presents a significant health and safety risk and could compromise the evidence by introducing additional contaminants.
Sources
New Zealand Police Forensic Procedures: Emphasize that unknown substances must be handled with caution, typically using gloves and avoiding direct contact (including taste or smell).
International Crime Scene Management Guidelines: State that handling of unknown powders or substances should be done using personal protective equipment (PPE) and minimal direct contact.
Hence, the best practice is B, examining the substance carefully while wearing gloves, and deciding if it should be collected for analysis based on standard forensic protocols.
Question 284
Which of the following scenarios could be an example of an interview record that has been improperly obtained? When the suspect:
A. Declines the support of an interpreter although one is clearly present.
B. Is asked to explain (challenged) about his different version of events.
C. Repeatedly asks for a lawyer but the interview continues on without one.
Answer:
C. Repeatedly asks for a lawyer but the interview continues on without one.
Reasoning
Under New Zealand law, particularly the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (section 23) and the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning, a suspect who repeatedly requests a lawyer must be allowed that right without delay. Continuing the interview when the suspect has clearly and repeatedly asked for legal counsel contravenes their right to obtain legal advice and could render the interview improperly obtained. As a result, any statements made after the requests are ignored may be deemed inadmissible.
Repeated Requests for a Lawyer:
Once a suspect invokes their right to counsel, the police must pause questioning until they have had an opportunity to consult with a lawyer.
Ignoring repeated requests undermines voluntariness and fairness in the interview.
Improperly Obtained Evidence:
Under the Evidence Act 2006, evidence obtained through a breach of the suspect’s rights is subject to potential exclusion if it is unfair or obtained through improper means.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Declines the support of an interpreter although one is clearly present.
If the suspect clearly understands the language being used and voluntarily declines an interpreter, it does not necessarily violate their rights. The suspect may simply feel they do not need one.
B. Is asked to explain (challenged) about his different version of events.
Challenging inconsistencies in a suspect’s account is standard, permissible interview practice. Merely asking the suspect to explain conflicting statements does not, by itself, make the record improperly obtained.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23): Codifies the right to consult a lawyer without delay.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Emphasizes respecting the suspect’s right to counsel and outlines fairness requirements for police interviews.
Evidence Act 2006 (Sections 28–30): Provides that any statement or confession obtained in breach of a suspect’s rights may be excluded as improperly obtained evidence.
Question 285
The best practice motto for crime scene initial action is Freeze, Guard, Control, Preserve. What is required to be preserved?
A. The witnesses.
B. The evidence.
C. The chain of custody.
Answer: B. The evidence.
Reasoning
The shorthand “Freeze, Guard, Control, Preserve” describes the best practice approach to managing a crime scene. Each term corresponds to specific actions:
Freeze: Immediately secure and isolate the scene so that no one enters or leaves without authorization.
Guard: Assign officers or personnel to watch over and protect the scene from unauthorized interference.
Control: Establish a common approach path and ensure only those with a legitimate need enter.
Preserve: Protect evidence from loss, contamination, or destruction.
Although chain of custody and the protection of witnesses are important elements of the investigative process, the specific step to “preserve” in the motto focuses on the evidence found at the scene. Ensuring the physical evidence is unaltered and uncontaminated is crucial for a successful investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings.
Why the Other Answers Are Not Correct
A. The witnesses
While witnesses are also essential, the motto primarily refers to physical evidence when it says “preserve.” Interviewing or safeguarding witnesses is a separate but equally critical process.
C. The chain of custody
While the chain of custody is vital, it is a procedure to maintain the integrity of evidence, not what must be immediately “preserved” in the sense of physical protection at the scene. The motto is specifically about not disturbing or destroying physical evidence.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual – Crime Scene Management: Emphasizes the actions necessary to secure and preserve a crime scene, including preventing contamination or destruction of evidence.
General Forensic Best Practices: Align with preserving the physical evidence as a top priority once a crime scene has been identified.
Question 286
In general, should an investigator regard a child or youth under the age of 18 years as a special consideration witness?
A. Yes, because the government agency Oranga Tamariki sets requirements for their interview.
B. Yes, because a specialist interviewer is always required for children and young people.
C. Yes, because their age and maturity level may mean they are vulnerable in an interview situation.
Answer: C. Yes, because their age and maturity level may mean they are vulnerable in an interview situation.
Reasoning
Under New Zealand Police practices and guidelines, children or young people (under 18) are generally regarded as special consideration witnesses due to factors such as age, limited life experience, and developmental maturity. These considerations are critical to ensure that interviews are conducted in a way that is fair, non-intimidating, and appropriate to their comprehension level.
Vulnerability: Young people may be more susceptible to confusion, leading questions, or pressure; hence, the need for special measures or procedures during interviews.
Guidelines: Both the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and Victims’ Rights Act 2002 emphasize additional protections for youth and children who come into contact with the justice system.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. Yes, because the government agency Oranga Tamariki sets requirements for their interview.
While Oranga Tamariki provides guidance and has certain statutory responsibilities related to children’s welfare, the fundamental reason for treating them as special consideration witnesses is not solely because of Oranga Tamariki’s requirements. It is because of their inherent vulnerability and developmental stage.
B. Yes, because a specialist interviewer is always required for children and young people.
Not always; the law does not mandate that every interview with a child or youth be conducted solely by a specialist interviewer. In some situations, it is recommended or required, especially in certain sexual or serious cases. However, it is not universally mandated for every kind of interview.
Sources
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Act 1989: Specifies procedures for dealing with youth suspects and witnesses.
New Zealand Police Manual: Highlights the importance of treating young witnesses as potentially more vulnerable and the need for age-appropriate interview techniques.
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Covers special protections for vulnerable witnesses, which can include children or young people.
Hence, Option C correctly captures the main reason investigators typically regard individuals under 18 as special consideration witnesses.
Question 287
When is a search warrant deemed to be legally executed?
A. When the premises specified in the warrant have been entered.
B. When the property specified in the warrant has been seized.
C. When the warrant has been endorsed.
Answer: A. When the premises specified in the warrant have been entered.
Reasoning
A search warrant is considered legally executed at the point when officers, acting under the authority of that warrant, physically enter the premises (or place) named in the warrant to carry out the search. It is the act of entry to conduct the search that signifies the execution of the warrant.
Entering the premises: Once the police legally enter the specified location with the intention of conducting the search, the warrant is in the process of being executed.
Why not the other answers?
B. When the property specified in the warrant has been seized.
Seizing property is a possible outcome of executing the warrant but does not define the point at which the warrant becomes “executed.” Officers can execute the warrant without necessarily finding or seizing anything.
C. When the warrant has been endorsed.
“Endorsement” can refer to administrative or procedural notes, but this alone does not signify the warrant’s execution. Execution is tied to the physical act of entering to conduct the search.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Outlines the procedures for issuing and executing search warrants, including that the act of entering the premises marks the execution.
New Zealand Police Manual: Reinforces that “execution” of the warrant occurs when officers make entry to carry out the authorized search.
Thus, Option A is correct because the crucial step in “executing” a warrant is entering the premises named in it.
Question 288
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which of the following could be an example of “privileged information”?
A. Patient records kept by a GP or psychologist.
B. CCTV video evidence from a camera in a bar.
C. DVD record of a special consideration witness interview.
Answer: A. Patient records kept by a GP or psychologist.
Reasoning
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, “privileged information” generally refers to material protected by legal or professional privilege, such as:
Legal professional privilege (communications between a lawyer and client).
Medical or psychological records (confidential communications with a doctor or psychologist).
Patient records held by a GP (general practitioner) or psychologist typically fall under professional confidentiality and are often recognized as privileged. Hence, they require special protection to ensure privacy and confidentiality.
Patient records: Involve sensitive health information, where patients have an expectation of confidentiality.
Professional confidentiality: Means these records are generally immune from warrantless search or seizure unless specific legal thresholds are met (e.g., overriding concerns or explicit provisions).
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct
B. CCTV video evidence from a camera in a bar
This does not carry legal privilege. While it may be subject to privacy considerations, it is not privileged material. It can be obtained under a search warrant if it is considered evidential material.
C. DVD record of a special consideration witness interview
Although there may be guidelines for handling special consideration witness interviews (e.g., for children or vulnerable witnesses), these recordings are not privileged; they can be subject to disclosure in legal proceedings. They do have protections, but not the same status as patient records protected by professional confidentiality.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Defines various forms of privilege, including legal professional privilege and other forms of professional privilege.
Privacy and Health Information Protections: Doctor-patient confidentiality is generally recognized as privileged under medical professional confidentiality principles.
Thus, Option A is correct because patient records held by a GP or psychologist are an example of “privileged information” under the Act.
Question 289
When a victim of a Victims’ Rights Act 2002, s29 offence is transported to hospital from a crime scene, an officer should accompany the victim to ensure:
A. Their clothing is collected and preserved for exhibit collection.
B. Their Victim Impact Statement is completed for the investigation.
C. Their right to go on the Victim’s Notification Register is explained.
A. Their clothing is collected and preserved for exhibit collection.
Question 290
When interviewing a person suspected of committing an offence, when should the caution be administered?
A. When there are grounds to believe the suspect committed the offence.
B. As soon as a substantial case is established against the suspect.
C. When you have sufficient evidence to charge a person with an offence.
A. When there are grounds to believe the suspect committed the offence.
Reasoning
Under New Zealand law and police interviewing guidelines, the caution (often referred to as the “Rights Caution”) should be administered as soon as you form reasonable grounds to believe the person may have committed the offence and you wish to question them about it. This ensures the suspect is aware of their rights—particularly the right to remain silent and the right to consult a lawyer—before being asked to make potentially incriminating statements.
Reasonable Grounds to Believe (RGB): As soon as you cross the threshold from general enquiries to treating the individual as a suspect, you must caution them.
Purpose of the Caution: Protects the suspect’s right against self-incrimination and ensures any statements obtained are voluntary and fairly made, thus admissible in court.
Why the Other Answers Are Not Correct
B. As soon as a substantial case is established against the suspect.
This is too high a threshold. The requirement to caution arises before a “substantial case” is established and as soon as you suspect the person and want to question them about the offence.
C. When you have sufficient evidence to charge a person with an offence.
Waiting until you have enough evidence to charge is too late. The caution must be given earlier, once the individual is reasonably suspected and police begin asking incriminating questions.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Right to silence and to consult a lawyer without delay.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Emphasizes that suspects must be cautioned when the officer has decided to treat them as a suspect (i.e., has reasonable grounds to believe they committed the offence) and intends to question them about it.
Question 291
You and several other officers are called to a party that has gotten out of control. A young woman at the party tells you that she was sexually assaulted in a bedroom of the house. One of your colleagues leaves to apply for a SW (search warrant). Could you use s117 in these circumstances?
A. Yes, because a search warrant is being sought, you are at the place, and you suspect that evidential material may be CADD or removed.
B. Yes, because a search warrant is being sought and you believe that evidential material may be CADD or removed.
C. Yes, because a search warrant is being sought, you are at the place, and you believe that evidential material may be CADD or removed.
Answer:
C. Yes, because a search warrant is being sought, you are at the place, and you believe that evidential material may be CADD or removed.
Reasoning
Under Section 117 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, police officers have the power to secure a place in anticipation of a search warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidential material at that location is at risk of being concealed, altered, damaged, or destroyed (CADD). In this scenario:
A colleague is applying for a search warrant: This indicates that the investigation has moved to the level where police seek judicial authorization to search.
You are at the place: You are physically present on the premises where the alleged offence took place.
You believe evidential material may be CADD or removed: Given it is a party that has “gotten out of control,” there is a reasonable concern that evidence (e.g., bedding, clothing, or other items relevant to the alleged sexual assault) could be hidden, destroyed, or removed.
Hence, all three conditions align with the requirements of Section 117, allowing you to secure the scene and prevent the destruction of potential evidence until the search warrant arrives.
Why It’s Not the Other Options
A. Yes, because a search warrant is being sought, you are at the place, and you suspect that evidential material may be CADD or removed.
While the language here is close, Section 117 specifically calls for having reasonable grounds to believe that evidence could be destroyed or removed. The scenario explicitly mentions you “believe” it may be CADD or removed, which better aligns with the phrasing in Option C, matching the legal threshold of “reasonable grounds to believe” rather than merely “suspect.”
B. Yes, because a search warrant is being sought and you believe that evidential material may be CADD or removed.
This option omits the important detail that you are physically at the place. The law requires that the officer be present at or near the location for s117 to apply.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 117: Outlines powers to secure a place when a search warrant is in process and there is belief evidential material might be destroyed or concealed.
New Zealand Police Manual: Confirms that physically being at the location, having a colleague seeking a warrant, and having grounds to believe evidence may be destroyed are key factors for using Section 117 powers.
Therefore, Option C is the best and most complete answer.
Question 292
Which of the following behaviours demonstrated by a lawyer at interview would be unacceptable?
Challenging the interviewer on the validity of the allegations made
Challenging a question put to their client that they believe to be improper
Challenging the manner in which a question is put to their client
Option A
Answer:
Challenging the interviewer on the validity of the allegations made is the behaviour that would be unacceptable.
Reasoning
During a police interview, a lawyer’s role is to:
Protect the suspect’s legal rights
Ensure the interview proceeds fairly
Challenge any improper or unfair questions (e.g., questions that are overly leading, ambiguous, or oppressive).
However, challenging the interviewer on the validity of the allegations is beyond the scope of ensuring fairness or legality in the interview process. It effectively turns the interview into a debate on the merits of the case rather than a fact-finding process. Such conduct can disrupt the interview’s purpose—gathering information—and undermine the interview’s integrity.
Challenging the manner of a question if it’s misleading or aggressive is acceptable, as it protects the client’s right to a fair interview.
Challenging a particular question believed to be improper is also acceptable if it ensures the client’s rights are upheld.
However, questioning the overall validity of the allegations during the interview is an argument about the substance of the police case. This typically belongs in legal submissions or court arguments, not the investigative interview process.
Sources
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Emphasizes that lawyers may object to specific unfair or improper questions but should not interfere by debating the overall validity of the case.
New Zealand Police Manual: Confirms that while lawyers can safeguard suspects’ rights, they cannot disrupt the interview by challenging the police’s allegations in a way that prevents proper questioning.
Hence, challenging the interviewer on the validity of the allegations made is considered an unacceptable behavior by a lawyer in this context.
Question 293
On being shown to the station’s interviewing room to consult with her client, a lawyer complains that a video machine is on and can be monitored from an adjacent room. She refers to the client’s rights to consult in private and requests the video machine is turned off. What response should she receive?
A. Authorisation must be obtained from a senior officer.
B. She must make this request in writing for the case record.
C. The machine will be turned off immediately as requested.
Answer:
The machine will be turned off immediately as requested.
Reasoning
Under New Zealand law, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, a suspect has the right to consult and instruct a lawyer in private. This right to privacy in lawyer-client consultations is crucial to ensure confidentiality and to uphold legal professional privilege.
Confidentiality:
The suspect must be able to discuss the case freely and confidentially with their lawyer.
If a video machine is running (even if not actively recording or being monitored), it may create a perception—or reality—of surveillance, undermining the suspect’s confidence in a private consultation.
Immediate Compliance:
Because the lawyer specifically requests the video machine be turned off to protect her client’s privacy, the appropriate response is to honor that request immediately, without requiring further authorization or formalities.
A suspect’s right to private communication with counsel does not hinge on senior approval or a written request; it is guaranteed by Section 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and related case law/practice notes.
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct
“Authorisation must be obtained from a senior officer.”
This is incorrect because the right to consult in private is immediate and does not require approval from a senior officer. Once the request is made, it should be acted upon immediately.
“She must make this request in writing for the case record.”
This is also incorrect. There is no requirement for a lawyer to submit a written request. If the lawyer orally requests the machine be turned off to ensure a private consultation, that request should be granted straight away.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23(1)(b): Affirms a detained person’s right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Emphasizes the necessity of allowing private communication between suspects and their legal counsel.
Hence, the correct course of action is to turn off the video machine immediately to respect the suspect’s right to a confidential discussion with their lawyer.
Question 294
An immediate statement taken in circumstances where you believe the victim may die (p.134):
A. Must be made in the presence of a medical officer who confirms they believe the death of the victim is imminent.
B. May be admissible if it is not signed.
C. Must be signed in order to be admissible.
Answer: B. May be admissible if it is not signed.
Reasoning
An immediate statement taken from a victim in a situation where the victim may die (often referred to as a “dying declaration” in legal contexts) can still be admissible even if it is not signed. The core principle is that, given the urgent circumstances (i.e., the victim’s fear of impending death), the statement may be accepted as evidence without a signature.
Dying or Immediate Declaration
Typically, such statements are admitted because the victim, believing they may not survive, has no reason to falsify testimony.
Although best practice would be to have a written and signed statement if possible, practicality and the victim’s condition can prevent a formal signature. The courts generally recognize that the lack of a signature does not necessarily render the statement inadmissible.
Why It’s Not the Other Options
A. Must be made in the presence of a medical officer who confirms they believe the death of the victim is imminent.
While it can add credibility if a medical officer is present to assess the victim’s condition, there is no absolute legal requirement that a doctor must confirm imminent death for such a statement to be admissible.
C. Must be signed in order to be admissible.
In urgent or dire situations, the victim may be physically unable to sign. The law acknowledges these exceptional circumstances, allowing the statement to be used in evidence without a signature, provided the necessary reliability and contextual criteria are met.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006 (New Zealand): Addresses how statements (including those made by persons believing they are near death) can be admitted as evidence under certain circumstances.
New Zealand Police Manual: Advises that while a signature is ideal, statements made under pressing conditions (like impending death) can still be considered admissible when certain criteria of reliability and context are satisfied.
Thus, Option B is correct because the statement may be admissible even if
Question 295
According to Criminal Justice Practice Note Guideline 4, when you are questioning a suspect about statements made by a witness, you should:
A. Tell the suspect you have a witness statement that incriminates them.
B. Read the entire witness’s statement word for word to the suspect.
C. Explain the substance or nature of the witness statements to them.
Answer: C. Explain the substance or nature of the witness statements to them.
Reasoning
Under Criminal Justice Practice Note Guideline 4, when questioning a suspect about statements made by a witness, the police interviewer should:
Explain the substance or essential points of the witness’s statements to the suspect.
Avoid reading the entire statement word-for-word or simply telling the suspect, “We have a statement that incriminates you.” Instead, the guideline focuses on giving the suspect a fair chance to understand and respond to the core information.
This approach ensures that:
The suspect is fairly informed of the nature of the allegations or evidence.
The interview remains balanced and does not become unnecessarily confrontational or misleading.
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct
A. Tell the suspect you have a witness statement that incriminates them.
This is insufficient and does not fulfill the guideline’s requirement to actually explain what the witness said. Simply saying a statement incriminates them does not provide enough detail for the suspect to respond meaningfully.
B. Read the entire witness’s statement word for word to the suspect.
This is unnecessary and can be detrimental to the fairness of the interview. The guideline advises against reading the entire statement verbatim. Instead, you should convey the essence or substance to allow the suspect to address or refute it, while keeping the interview focused and fair.
Sources
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning, Guideline 4: Advises interviewers to convey the essential details of the witness’s statements without reading them in their entirety, ensuring the suspect understands the nature of the evidence.
Hence, Option C aligns with best practices by instructing the officer to explain the substance or nature of the witness statements to the suspect.
Question 296
Tim commits a robbery at a local dairy and steals $100.00 in cash. As he runs off he drops $40.00 on the footpath. A witness tells you she saw Donna pick up the money. You locate Donna a short distance away, but she denies picking up the money. Can you search Donna under s16?
A. Yes, because s16 permits a search of a person in a public place.
B. Yes, because you have RGTB she possesses evidential material.
C. No, because the evidential material is not related to an offence punishable by 14 years or more.
Answer:
C. No, because the evidential material is not related to an offence punishable by 14 years or more.
Reasoning
Section 16 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows a constable to search a person in a public place if they have reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) that the person is in possession of evidential material related to an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more.
Robbery under Section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961, while serious, is typically punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, not 14.
Since the offence in question (robbery) does not meet the “14 years or more” threshold required by s16, the officer cannot conduct a warrantless search of Donna under this specific provision, even if there are reasonable grounds to believe she has some of the stolen money.
Why Not the Other Answers
A. Yes, because s16 permits a search of a person in a public place.
This omits the critical requirement that the offence in question be punishable by 14 years or more. Being in a public place does not, by itself, suffice for a s16 search.
B. Yes, because you have RGTB she possesses evidential material.
Although you may suspect she has the stolen money, s16 still requires the offence to be punishable by 14 years or more. The offence of robbery generally carries a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, falling short of that threshold.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 16: Authorizes warrantless searches of persons in a public place if the offence is punishable by 14+ years and there are RGTB they possess evidential material.
Crimes Act 1961, Section 234 (Robbery): Punishable by up to 10 years, hence not meeting the “14 years or more” criterion.
Thus, Option C is correct because the statutory requirement for a s16 search is not fulfilled.
Note: Under s16, a constable may search a person without a warrant in a public place if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is in possession of evidential material relating to an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more.
Question 297
Which of the following scenarios could affect the reliability of a suspect interview record? When the suspect being interviewed is:
A. Informed of the circumstantial evidence already held by Police.
B. Tired and clearly unwell but is not offered an interview break.
C. Sometimes confused when changing her version of events.
Answer: B. Tired and clearly unwell but is not offered an interview break.
Reasoning
The reliability of a suspect interview record can be compromised if the conditions of the interview affect the suspect’s ability to make a voluntary and accurate statement. A suspect who is noticeably tired and unwell but not afforded an opportunity to rest or receive care may feel pressured, physically impaired, or mentally unable to provide coherent answers, thereby undermining the fairness and reliability of the interview.
Fatigue / Illness: If the suspect is visibly tired and unwell yet required to continue without a break or medical attention, it can raise questions about the voluntariness and the quality of any statements made.
Fair Treatment: Under Chief Justice’s Practice Note and general fairness principles, officers must conduct interviews in a manner that respects the suspect’s physical and mental condition.
Why Not the Other Options
A. Informed of the circumstantial evidence already held by Police.
It is both legal and acceptable practice to confront a suspect with evidence or inconsistencies. This does not, by itself, make the interview record unreliable as long as it is done fairly and without coercion.
C. Sometimes confused when changing her version of events.
A suspect becoming confused or revising their account does not automatically mean the interview record is unreliable. It could indicate the suspect is lying, mistaken, or clarifying details. Confusion alone—without oppressive or unfair interview conditions—does not necessarily affect the reliability of the record.
Sources
Evidence Act 2006, Sections 28-30: Addresses the admissibility of statements and conditions under which statements might be deemed unreliable.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Stresses ensuring that suspects are treated fairly, including consideration of their physical and mental state during interviews.
Hence, Option B is the scenario most clearly indicating that the reliability of the interview may be compromised.
Question 298
According to the Investigative Interviewing doctrine, which of the following statements about probing questions is correct?
A. An interviewer must follow a witness account with probing questions.
B. An interviewer should avoid asking probing questions beginning with “why.”
C. An interviewer should initiate a suspect account with a probing question.
Answer:
A. An interviewer must follow a witness account with probing questions.
Reasoning
In the Investigative Interviewing doctrine, the recommended approach is to:
Obtain a free account from the witness or suspect first, using open-ended questions to encourage them to provide an uninterrupted, detailed version of events.
Follow up that account with probing or closed questions to clarify or expand on points raised in the free narrative. This ensures completeness and accuracy without leading the interviewee early on.
Hence, the doctrine encourages the interviewer to follow the witness’s initial account with probing questions, rather than starting with them.
Why Not the Other Options
B. An interviewer should avoid asking probing questions beginning with “why.”
While “why” can sometimes be confrontational or lead to more defensive answers, there is no absolute prohibition on using it. The key point is to ensure fairness and clarity, but option B is not the primary tenet about probing questions from the doctrine.
C. An interviewer should initiate a suspect account with a probing question.
This goes against best practices. A suspect or witness account should begin with open-ended questions, not immediately with probing (closed or leading) ones. The free recall or open question phase allows the person to provide their account without being led.
Sources
New Zealand Police: Investigative Interviewing Manual
PEACE Model (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluation), which directs using open questions before using probing questions to clarify details.
Thus, Option A is correct because the doctrine advises obtaining a free account first, then following up with probing questions to fill gaps or clarify inconsistencies.
Question 299
Contamination of DNA evidence is a real risk. The minimum standard of protective clothing to be worn by everybody entering a scene is (intranet DNZ evidence at crime scenes):
A. Masks and booties.
B. Gloves and masks.
C. Gloves and booties.
Answer:
B. Gloves and masks.
Reasoning
When dealing with potential DNA evidence, the primary sources of contamination from scene attendees come from:
Touch DNA: Skin flakes, oils, or sweat from hands.
Respiratory droplets: Saliva or breath expelled from the mouth or nose.
Gloves protect against transferring DNA from the hands onto surfaces, while masks help prevent contamination from exhaled breath, saliva, or nasal droplets. Therefore, the minimum standard to reduce the risk of contaminating DNA evidence is to wear gloves and masks.
Booties (foot coverings) may further minimize contamination from footwear, but the intranet DNZ evidence guidelines emphasize that gloves and masks are the minimal requirement for those entering a scene where DNA evidence is a concern.
Why Not the Other Options
A. Masks and booties:
Wearing booties protects against trace evidence contamination from shoes but doesn’t address contact contamination from hands. Gloves are essential to avoid direct contact.
C. Gloves and booties:
While booties can help minimize environmental contamination, masks are more critical than foot coverings for protecting DNA evidence from respiratory droplets.
Sources
DNZ Evidence at Crime Scenes (New Zealand Police Intranet): Specifies minimum protective gear to prevent DNA contamination.
Forensic Best Practices: Emphasize the use of gloves and face coverings (masks) to prevent introducing or spreading DNA traces at crime scenes.
Question 300
Primary transfer occurs when:
A. The O/C initial party hands over scene control to O/C case.
B. There is direct transfer of material between one party and another.
C. There is indirect transfer of material between a party and another.
B. There is direct transfer of material between one party and another.
Reasoning
In forensic science, primary transfer refers to the direct transfer of material (e.g., DNA, fibers, hair) from one source to another. For instance, if Person A’s clothing fibers are transferred directly to Person B during an altercation, this is a primary transfer of trace evidence.
Secondary transfer, by contrast, occurs if the material moves indirectly—for example, Person A’s fibers adhere to Person C, and then Person C passes them on to Person B. That would be a second, more indirect step.
Hence, Option B accurately describes primary transfer as the direct movement of material from one party to another.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A. The O/C initial party hands over scene control to O/C case.
This refers to an administrative process in crime scene management (handing over control), not a transfer of material or evidence.
C. There is indirect transfer of material between a party and another.
This describes secondary transfer, not primary transfer. In secondary transfer, the material passes through an intermediary before ending up at its final location.
Sources
Forensic Science Basics: Explains the difference between primary and secondary transfer in trace evidence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Provides guidelines on understanding how evidence, such as fibers or DNA, can be transferred directly (primary) or indirectly (secondary).
Question 301
One of the principles laid down in the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 guides access to services for victims. In this respect, Police must inform victims that:
A. Police will provide legal and welfare support they require.
B. They are entitled to access to welfare, health, medical, or legal services.
C. Their on-going needs as a victim will be met free of charge.
B. They are entitled to access to welfare, health, medical, or legal services.
Reasoning
Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, one of the guiding principles is that victims of crime—particularly those covered by Section 29 (serious offences)—must be informed of the range of support services available. While the police do not themselves provide all these services, they are obligated to ensure victims know of their right to access welfare, health, medical, or legal services.
Police Obligation: The law stipulates that police must inform victims of existing services (e.g., medical and psychological support, legal advice) that can help them cope with the aftermath of a serious offence.
Entitlement: This information empowers victims to seek appropriate support rather than depending solely on the police.
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct
A. Police will provide legal and welfare support they require.
This is incorrect as the police do not themselves provide all legal or welfare support. They typically refer victims to other agencies or community support services. The Act requires informing victims about the existence of services, not guaranteeing that police will deliver them directly.
C. Their on-going needs as a victim will be met free of charge.
This is incorrect because although some services (like certain victim support) may come at no cost, it is not guaranteed that all of their on-going needs will be met free of charge. Police must inform victims of services, but they do not assure everything is cost-free.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Especially Sections detailing obligations for police to inform victims of available support and services.
New Zealand Police Manual: Emphasizes the requirement to inform victims of their rights and services to assist them after an offence.
Hence, Option B correctly states that victims must be informed of their entitlement to welfare, health, medical, or legal services.
Question 302
What are the sequential steps of the Appreciation technique? (p.9)
A. Aim, factors, courses open, plan.
B. Aim, courses open, plan, record.
C. Aim, plan, factors, courses open.
A. Aim, factors, courses open, plan.
Question 303
The initial action party at the scene of a serious crime must work quickly to:
A. Conduct interviews with all witnesses present at the scene.
B. Uplift specific items of interest within the scene (e.g., weapons).
C. Cordon the area to prevent any person entering the scene and remove people from the scene to reduce further contamination.
Answer:
C. Cordon the area to prevent any person entering the scene and remove people from the scene to reduce further contamination.
Reasoning:
The immediate priority at a serious crime scene is to secure the area to prevent contamination or tampering with evidence. Cordon control ensures that the integrity of the crime scene is maintained, which is critical for the subsequent forensic investigation and collection of evidence.
Why not the other options?
A. Conduct interviews with all witnesses present at the scene:
While speaking to witnesses is important, it is not the first step. Witnesses can be temporarily contained or asked to wait until the scene is secured. The focus should be on preserving the crime scene first to avoid losing crucial evidence.
B. Uplift specific items of interest within the scene (e.g., weapons):
Items of interest, such as weapons, should not be touched or removed immediately. They must be carefully documented and collected according to proper procedures to maintain the chain of custody and avoid contamination or allegations of evidence tampering.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Crime Scene Protocols: Emphasize securing and preserving the scene as the top priority.
Investigative Guidelines: Freeze, Guard, Control, Preserve is a key motto for initial crime scene action.
Question 304
When a nominated person arrives to support a youth for an interview, you should give the nominated person the ‘Advice and Duties Nominated Person’ booklet and:
A. Explain its contents to the nominated person and allow them time alone to discuss it with the youth.
B. Commence the interview, stating who is present and their role and explain the youth’s rights on video.
C. Ascertain they have read it, and get them to sign that they understand and agree to their role requirements.
Answer:
C. Ascertain they have read it, and get them to sign that they understand and agree to their role requirements.
Reasoning:
The nominated person plays a critical role in supporting the youth during the interview process. It is essential to ensure that they understand their duties and agree to act in accordance with them. Obtaining their signature on the document provides evidence that they were properly briefed and consented to their responsibilities.
Why not the other options?
A. Explain its contents to the nominated person and allow them time alone to discuss it with the youth:
While explaining the booklet’s contents is important, the requirement to sign the document ensures a formal acknowledgment of understanding and agreement, which is a procedural safeguard.
B. Commence the interview, stating who is present and their role and explain the youth’s rights on video:
This step occurs later in the process. Before the interview begins, it must be established that the nominated person has read and agreed to their role requirements. Starting the interview prematurely may result in procedural issues.
Sources:
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989: Specifies the importance of ensuring nominated persons are informed and capable of fulfilling their duties.
New Zealand Police Interviewing Protocols for Youth: Emphasize procedural compliance to safeguard youth rights.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note: Details on procedural requirements for youth interviews.
Question 305
Before applying for a SW, you must be sure that the offence you suspect is being, has been, or is about to be committed is:
A. Any type of Category 1 offence.
B. An offence punishable by imprisonment.
C. An offence under any enactment.
B. An offence punishable by imprisonment.
Reasoning:
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a search warrant can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that evidential material related to an offence punishable by imprisonment is present at the location. This ensures that the use of a warrant is justified for more serious offences and aligns with the principle of proportionality.
Why not the other options?
A. Any type of Category 1 offence:
Category 1 offences are minor offences (e.g., most traffic infringements) that are not punishable by imprisonment. These do not meet the threshold for justifying a search warrant.
C. An offence under any enactment:
While some offences under various enactments could justify a search warrant, not all offences qualify. The specific requirement is that the offence must carry a penalty of imprisonment.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 6: Defines the threshold for offences justifying a search warrant.
New Zealand Police Manual – Search Warrant Guidelines: Confirms the criteria for applying for a warrant, focusing on imprisonable offences.
Question 306
As the interview proceeds, the suspect suddenly claims his right to silence. You have not yet put any challenges to him nor mentioned the witness statements you have. Should you stop the interview at this stage?
A. No, the suspect must be taken before the court as soon as possible, and delaying the process may affect this.
B. Yes, if the suspect is maintaining his right to silence, then he is delaying the processes so you can stop indefinitely.
C. No, you should proceed to fairly explain the allegations, making a notebook record of events before closing.
C. No, you should proceed to fairly explain the allegations, making a notebook record of events before closing.
Reasoning:
When a suspect claims their right to silence, police must respect that right. However, it is permissible to continue explaining the allegations against them, as this is part of providing the suspect with a fair understanding of the case they face. The explanation must be conducted fairly, without pressuring or coercing the suspect to respond. Recording this process in your notebook ensures transparency and accountability in case the matter is later scrutinized in court.
Why not the other options?
A. No, the suspect must be taken before the court as soon as possible, and delaying the process may affect this:
While timely court appearance is important, this does not preclude completing necessary steps such as explaining the allegations. Delays in the process are acceptable if they ensure the interview is conducted appropriately.
B. Yes, if the suspect is maintaining his right to silence, then he is delaying the processes so you can stop indefinitely:
This is incorrect. A suspect exercising their right to silence does not equate to delaying processes. It is the duty of police to respect this right while ensuring procedural fairness, including explaining the allegations.
Sources:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Right to silence.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Guidelines for fairness and transparency in suspect interviews.
New Zealand Police Manual – Investigative Interviewing Doctrine: Emphasizes the importance of explaining allegations even if the suspect remains silent.
Question 307
Which of the following scenarios constitutes a robbery?
A. Struggling with a victim who is hanging onto a cash bag.
B. Knocking the victim to the ground whilst grabbing a cash bag.
C. Snatching a cash bag from a victim.
B. Knocking the victim to the ground whilst grabbing a cash bag.
Reasoning:
Under Section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961, robbery involves theft accompanied by the use of violence or threats of violence. In this scenario, knocking the victim to the ground constitutes violence that occurs in conjunction with the theft, satisfying the legal definition of robbery.
Why not the other options?
A. Struggling with a victim who is hanging onto a cash bag:
This could be considered an attempted robbery or theft with force but does not meet the threshold of robbery unless the violence is substantial and directly tied to the theft.
C. Snatching a cash bag from a victim:
Snatching the cash bag without violence or a threat of violence is considered theft, not robbery. Robbery requires violence or intimidation beyond mere snatching.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 234: Defines robbery as theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence.
New Zealand Police Manual: Provides guidelines on distinguishing between theft, robbery, and other offences involving property.
Question 308
A serious assault has occurred in a public place. You have good cause to suspect David is the offender. You arrest David and place him in the back of a Police car. Before leaving the scene, you are approached by Michael who admits committing the assault. You no longer believe David to be involved. The correct action is:
A. Release David once you have a statement of admission from Michael.
B. Release David immediately and document the circumstances.
C. Complete a charge sheet and note release details in the ‘Remarks’ section.
B. Release David immediately and document the circumstances.
Reasoning:
Police must ensure that an arrest is lawful and justified at all times. Once it is established that David is not responsible for the offence, he should be released immediately to avoid an unlawful detention. The circumstances surrounding his arrest and release must then be properly documented for accountability.
Why not the other options?
A. Release David once you have a statement of admission from Michael:
It is not necessary to wait for a formal statement from Michael before releasing David. The immediate priority is to correct the wrongful detention.
C. Complete a charge sheet and note release details in the ‘Remarks’ section:
Completing a charge sheet is inappropriate in this case as David is no longer a suspect. Charge sheets are reserved for situations where a suspect is being charged with an offence.
Sources:
Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 22: Protects against arbitrary detention and mandates the release of individuals who are no longer lawfully detained.
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on lawful arrest and detention emphasize the need for immediate action when a mistake has been identified.
Question 309
If you are first at the scene where a body has been found, you must secure the scene and:
A. Mark the position of the body and arrange for the undertaker.
B. Check for signs of life and render assistance accordingly.
C. Do not touch the body under any circumstances.
Answer:
B. Check for signs of life and render assistance accordingly.
Reasoning:
The primary responsibility of the first officer at the scene of a potential fatality is to ensure that any chance of preserving life is acted upon immediately. If the person is found to be alive, immediate assistance should be provided to save their life. If the person is confirmed deceased, the scene should be secured to preserve evidence.
Why not the other options?
A. Mark the position of the body and arrange for the undertaker:
While marking the position of the body is important for preserving the crime scene, the priority is to check for signs of life before considering any other steps. Arranging for an undertaker would only be relevant after all investigative and legal requirements have been fulfilled.
C. Do not touch the body under any circumstances:
This is incorrect because if there are signs of life, officers are obligated to render assistance. The principle of preserving life takes precedence over preserving evidence.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Manual - Initial Scene Response Guidelines: Emphasizes the obligation to prioritize life-saving efforts over other scene management tasks.
Crimes Act 1961 - Duty to Assist: Outlines the legal obligation to provide assistance where it is possible to do so.
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Highlights the importance of humane and compassionate treatment at scenes involving victims.
Question 310
‘Chain of evidence’ refers to:
A. The official record of exhibit collection, security, and movement.
B. The forensic material collected to support the prosecution case.
C. The order in which exhibits are presented by the prosecution.
A. The official record of exhibit collection, security, and movement.
Reasoning:
The “chain of evidence” (or “chain of custody”) refers to the process of documenting the handling of evidence from the moment it is collected until it is presented in court. This includes recording who handled the evidence, when it was handled, and what was done with it. Maintaining an unbroken chain of evidence is crucial to ensure the integrity and admissibility of evidence in court.
Why not the other options?
B. The forensic material collected to support the prosecution case:
While forensic material is often critical to a prosecution case, the “chain of evidence” is not about the material itself but the process of documenting its handling and movement.
C. The order in which exhibits are presented by the prosecution:
The chain of evidence does not refer to how exhibits are organized or presented in court. Instead, it ensures that the evidence is securely managed and its authenticity maintained from collection to trial.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Manual - Exhibits and Evidence Handling: Emphasizes the importance of maintaining an accurate chain of custody to preserve evidence integrity.
Evidence Act 2006: Stipulates the requirements for admissibility of evidence, including proper documentation and handling.
Best Practices for Crime Scene Management: Highlights the need for clear and continuous documentation of evidence to avoid contamination or challenges in court.
Question 311
In relation to section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961, the difference between subsections (1) and (2) relates to:
A. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the suspect.
B. The recklessness of the suspect in relation to the injuries caused.
C. The intent of the suspect when causing the injuries.
C. The intent of the suspect when causing the injuries.
Reasoning:
Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1961 deals with wounding with intent, and the distinction between subsections (1) and (2) primarily revolves around intent versus recklessness.
Subsection (1) specifies that the offender must act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, making it a more severe offence with a higher penalty (up to 14 years imprisonment).
Subsection (2) applies when the offender either intends to injure or acts with reckless disregard for the safety of others, resulting in a lesser penalty (up to 7 years imprisonment).
Thus, the critical distinction lies in the intent to cause grievous bodily harm (subsection 1) versus intent to injure or reckless disregard (subsection 2).
Why not the other answers?
A. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the suspect:
The seriousness of the injuries is not the key difference between subsections (1) and (2). Both subsections refer to actions that may cause grievous bodily harm, but the distinguishing factor is the suspect’s intent or recklessness, not the injuries’ severity.
B. The recklessness of the suspect in relation to the injuries caused:
While subsection (2) includes reckless disregard, subsection (1) does not. The overarching distinction between the subsections is the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which is exclusive to subsection (1).
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961 - Section 188
Subsection (1): Focuses on intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Subsection (2): Includes intent to injure or reckless disregard for safety.
New Zealand Police Manual: Explains the significance of intent in categorizing offences under this section.
Question 312
When you are satisfied on reasonable grounds that an arrest of a youth (15 years) without a warrant is necessary in the circumstances, which section of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 overrides any other enactment in making an arrest?
A. Section 221.
B. Section 214.
C. Section 235.
B. Section 214.
Reasoning:
Section 214 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (now known as the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989) explicitly outlines the criteria for arresting a youth (aged 14-16) without a warrant. It overrides other enactments by emphasizing that a youth can only be arrested when certain conditions are met, such as:
It is necessary to ensure the youth’s appearance in court.
To prevent further offending.
To prevent loss of or damage to evidence or interference with witnesses.
This provision prioritizes youth-specific considerations, ensuring arrests are made only when absolutely necessary and as a last resort, aligning with principles of the Act to safeguard the rights and well-being of young people.
Why not the other answers?
A. Section 221:
Section 221 deals with duties of Oranga Tamariki during custody or court appearances and does not govern the conditions under which a youth may be arrested.
C. Section 235:
Section 235 pertains to the custody of children and young persons who have absconded or breached their bail conditions. While it allows certain actions, it does not override other enactments in making an initial arrest without a warrant.
Sources:
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, Section 214: Specifies the circumstances under which a youth can be arrested without a warrant.
New Zealand Police Manual: Highlights the importance of complying with Section 214 when dealing with youth to avoid unnecessary arrests.
Guidelines for Police on Youth Justice: Reinforces that Section 214 takes precedence in youth arrests to uphold the Act’s principles.
Question 313
Think about the definition of a crime scene and select the situation most likely to lead to cross-contamination:
A. When an examiner wears protective clothing but no mask.
B. When scene equipment is re-used without cleaning.
C. When the material in a scene is altered by strong sunlight.
B. When scene equipment is re-used without cleaning.
Reasoning:
Cross-contamination refers to the unintentional transfer of material (such as DNA, fingerprints, or other evidence) from one item or location to another, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
Re-using scene equipment without cleaning introduces material from one scene, location, or exhibit to another, making it the most likely scenario for contamination. This is a critical procedural failure as it could affect the admissibility of evidence and compromise the investigation’s outcome.
Why not the other answers?
A. When an examiner wears protective clothing but no mask:
While not wearing a mask may increase the risk of contamination (e.g., DNA from breath or saliva), it is less likely to cause contamination compared to improperly handled equipment used on multiple exhibits or scenes. Protective clothing like gloves and overalls still reduce contamination risks substantially.
C. When the material in a scene is altered by strong sunlight:
Strong sunlight might degrade or alter certain types of evidence, such as DNA, but it does not constitute “cross-contamination,” which specifically involves the transfer of material between locations or items.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Crime Scene Manual: Emphasizes the importance of cleaning and decontaminating equipment to prevent cross-contamination.
Standard Operating Procedures for Crime Scene Examination: Highlights proper handling and decontamination of tools to preserve evidence integrity.
Best Practices in Forensic Evidence Collection: Details the risks and mitigation of cross-contamination through proper use of disposable and cleaned equipment.
Question 314
If the O/C Initial Action party locates an item they believe is going to rapidly deteriorate, the best course of action is to:
A. Take immediate action to preserve the item.
B. Notify the O/C Investigation and await further instructions.
C. Leave it in situ and await arrival of a photographer.
Answer:
A. Take immediate action to preserve the item.
Reasoning:
If an item is likely to deteriorate rapidly, it is crucial to preserve it immediately to ensure its evidential value is not lost. Evidence that is not preserved could degrade, rendering it useless for the investigation or in court. The goal of evidence preservation is to maintain its integrity while minimizing the risk of contamination or loss.
Immediate preservation might include actions such as securing the item in a proper container, refrigeration (if applicable), or shielding it from environmental factors (e.g., heat, light, or moisture).
Why not the other answers?
B. Notify the O/C Investigation and await further instructions:
While notifying the O/C Investigation is standard procedure, awaiting instructions might result in delays that could allow the item to deteriorate further. Timely action is crucial in these situations.
C. Leave it in situ and await arrival of a photographer:
Leaving the item untouched until a photographer arrives is unsuitable if the item is at risk of rapid deterioration. While photographing evidence in its original position is ideal, preserving the item takes priority to ensure its value is retained.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Crime Scene Manual: Stresses the importance of evidence preservation and prioritizing items at risk of degradation.
Best Practices for Crime Scene Management: Highlights the need for immediate action in preserving perishable evidence.
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Discusses the importance of securing evidential material to maintain its integrity.
Question 315
Which of the following tasks is not the responsibility of an exhibits officer?
A. Establish the relevance of the exhibit to the enquiry.
B. Prepare exhibits in the best manner for display to the court.
C. Manage the receipt, control, and storage of all exhibits.
A. Establish the relevance of the exhibit to the enquiry.
Reasoning:
An exhibits officer’s primary responsibilities are logistical and procedural. Their duties involve managing the collection, documentation, control, and storage of exhibits to maintain the chain of custody and ensure evidential integrity. Determining the relevance of an exhibit to the investigation is a responsibility of the O/C Investigation or other investigative officers, not the exhibits officer.
Why not the other answers?
B. Prepare exhibits in the best manner for display to the court:
Preparing exhibits for court presentation falls within the procedural responsibilities of the exhibits officer to ensure evidence is organized, labeled, and presented professionally.
C. Manage the receipt, control, and storage of all exhibits:
This is one of the core tasks of an exhibits officer. Proper handling and secure storage are essential to maintain the chain of custody and prevent contamination or tampering.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Exhibit Management Guidelines: Defines the role of an exhibits officer and outlines their responsibilities in handling exhibits.
Police Best Practices for Evidence Management: Highlights the distinction between investigative and procedural roles.
Chain of Custody Principles: Stresses the exhibits officer’s role in ensuring the integrity of evidence storage and documentation.
Question 316
In the appreciation technique, what is a factor?
A. An actual event that must be taken into consideration.
B. A statement of truth about a known influence or circumstance.
C. A consideration of something that is known or assumed.
B. A statement of truth about a known influence or circumstance.
Reasoning:
In the appreciation technique, a factor is defined as a statement of truth about something that is known and must be considered when developing a plan. Factors are based on verified or established information that influences the analysis of a situation and the decisions made.
Example: In a tactical operation, a factor might be, “The suspect is known to have access to firearms.” This is a verified truth that must be accounted for in planning.
Why not the other answers?
A. An actual event that must be taken into consideration:
While actual events might influence planning, factors in the appreciation technique refer to statements of verified truths rather than specific events.
C. A consideration of something that is known or assumed:
Factors are based on known truths, not assumptions. Assumptions may play a role in planning, but they are treated separately under the appreciation technique as potential risks or courses of action.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Planning Doctrine: Describes the appreciation technique and the role of factors in structured decision-making.
Operational Planning Guidelines: Outlines the distinction between factors, assumptions, and courses of action in the appreciation technique.
Police Training Material (Appreciation Technique): Provides examples and definitions of factors and how they guide decision-making.
Question 317
When executing a SW on a property, you seize items from the house and a garage on the property which is rented out. Under s133 (Inventory of items seized), you must provide a POL268 inventory of the items seized from the garage to:
A. The person renting the garage.
B. The owner of the garage.
C. The occupier of the house.
A. The person renting the garage.
Reasoning:
Under Section 133 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, an inventory of items seized must be provided to the person from whom the items were taken or the person who had possession or control of the location from which the items were seized. In this case, since the garage is rented out and is under the control of the tenant, the inventory must be provided to the person renting the garage.
Example: If the tenant had possession and use of the garage, the items seized from the garage are considered to have been taken from the tenant, not the owner or occupier of the house.
Why not the other answers?
B. The owner of the garage:
The garage owner has no direct possession or control over the contents of the garage once it is rented out. The obligation lies with the person in control of the property at the time of the search, which is the tenant.
C. The occupier of the house:
The occupier of the house has no connection to the garage, as it is rented out separately. The items seized from the garage do not concern the house occupier unless they were jointly responsible for the garage’s contents.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 133: Specifies the requirements for providing an inventory of seized items.
New Zealand Police Guidelines for Search Warrants: Emphasizes the need to give the inventory to the person in possession or control of the premises.
Practical Application Examples in Training Materials: Highlights scenarios involving multi-tenant properties and the distribution of inventory records.
Question 318
Doug and Colin have no money so decide to hide in the bushes and wait for a pedestrian to go by so they can steal that person’s cash. As a pedestrian approaches Doug changes his mind and takes off. Colin hits the pedestrian and searches his pockets. He finds no money but takes an MP3 player instead. Colin is liable for which of the following?
A. ‘Aggravated robbery’ as he was together with Doug when they first hid in the bushes and made the plan
B. ‘Theft’ as the intention to steal the MP3 player was only conceived after he realised that the pedestrian had no money
C. ‘Robbery’ as he has used violence on the pedestrian and stolen the MP3 player
C. ‘Robbery’ as he has used violence on the pedestrian and stolen the MP3 player.
Reasoning:
Under Section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961, robbery is defined as theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence. In this scenario, Colin used violence by hitting the pedestrian and then took the MP3 player. The presence of violence in combination with theft meets the criteria for robbery.
Key elements of robbery:
Violence or threats of violence.
Theft or attempted theft.
Even though the initial plan was to steal money, the change in Colin’s actions does not negate the fact that violence was used and property (the MP3 player) was taken.
Why not the other answers?
‘Aggravated robbery’ as he was together with Doug when they first hid in the bushes and made the plan:
Aggravated robbery requires the offender to be armed with an offensive weapon or be in the company of others. Although Doug was initially part of the plan, he left the scene and played no active role in the robbery. Colin acted alone, and there was no weapon involved, so it does not qualify as aggravated robbery.
‘Theft’ as the intention to steal the MP3 player was only conceived after he realised that the pedestrian had no money:
Theft does not involve the use of violence. Since Colin used violence to hit the pedestrian and then stole the MP3 player, the offence exceeds the definition of theft and qualifies as robbery.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 234 (Robbery): Defines robbery as theft involving violence or threats of violence.
New Zealand Police Training Materials: Highlights that the use of violence elevates theft to robbery.
Case Law Precedents: Cases involving solo offenders confirm that robbery requires violence accompanying theft, regardless of initial plans.
Question 319
Elimination samples are:
A. Forensic samples that cannot be linked to a suspect or offender.
B. Forensic samples that have to be discarded due to contamination.
C. Taken from people who had legitimate contact with the scene or an exhibit.
C. Taken from people who had legitimate contact with the scene or an exhibit.
Reasoning:
Elimination samples are collected to differentiate between individuals who have had legitimate contact with the scene or exhibit (e.g., first responders, victims, or household members) and potential offenders. These samples help ensure that any forensic evidence found is not mistakenly linked to the suspect due to legitimate prior contact.
Why not A?
Elimination samples are not unrelated to the investigation—they are purposefully collected to account for individuals who had legitimate access to the scene or exhibit, which is essential for excluding them from the forensic results.
Why not B?
Elimination samples are not discarded due to contamination. On the contrary, they are a critical part of the investigative process to prevent contamination from being misinterpreted as evidence against the suspect.
Source:
Guidelines on crime scene management and forensic evidence collection highlight the importance of elimination samples in differentiating legitimate contact from evidential material (New Zealand Police Manual, Forensic Evidence Protocols).
Question 320
A local chemist has caught a woman shoplifting cosmetics in his shop. He prevents her from leaving and calls the police. You attend, form your reasonable grounds to search the woman, and give your obligations. You search the woman’s pockets and carry bag and locate the missing items. You also find and remove some items of clothing that you suspect are stolen as they still have security tags. Following your search, the woman must be given a copy of:
A. A POL262 summary of facts record.
B. A POL268 inventory of items seized.
C. A POLSW8 warrantless search report.
B. A POL268 inventory of items seized.
Reasoning:
When items are seized during a lawful search, an inventory of those items must be provided to the individual from whom the items were taken. The POL268 Inventory of Items Seized form fulfills this obligation under section 133 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. This ensures transparency and allows the person to know exactly what items were taken.
Why not A?
The POL262 Summary of Facts record is not relevant here, as it is used to summarize the circumstances of the offending and evidence for prosecutorial purposes, not for documenting items seized during a search.
Why not C?
The POLSW8 Warrantless Search Report is a report prepared for supervisory and accountability purposes after conducting a warrantless search. While it must be completed, it is not the document given to the individual whose items were seized.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 133: Obligations to provide an inventory of seized items.
New Zealand Police Manual: Procedures for search and seizure.
Question 321
When a witness has provided a description that matches the suspect, the best way to present this as a challenge during the suspect interview is to say:
A. “A witness has provided details of an offender that fits your description.”
B. “We have evidence from witnesses that you were at the scene.”
C. “A witness has identified you as the person who committed this offence.”
A. “A witness has provided details of an offender that fits your description.”
Reasoning:
When challenging a suspect during an interview, the approach must be fair and avoid overstating or misrepresenting the evidence. Stating, “A witness has provided details of an offender that fits your description,” is accurate and allows the suspect to respond without undue pressure or coercion. It maintains compliance with the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning, which emphasizes fairness and openness during interviews.
Why not B?
“We have evidence from witnesses that you were at the scene” implies certainty that multiple witnesses place the suspect at the scene, which might not be accurate. If overstated, it could render the challenge unfair or misleading, potentially leading to the exclusion of evidence in court.
Why not C?
“A witness has identified you as the person who committed this offence” is a direct accusation and could misrepresent the evidence if no formal identification has been made. Such a statement might unfairly influence the suspect or be seen as coercive, which could affect the reliability of the interview record.
Source:
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Guidelines on fairness and presenting evidence during suspect interviews.
New Zealand Police Investigative Interviewing Doctrine: Best practices for challenging suspects.
Question 322
When taking digital images of a crime scene yourself, you must start an audit trail recording the details of the images in your notebook. What details must be recorded?
A. Date, time, and location.
B. Date, time, and file number range.
C. Date, file number range, and camera make and model.
A. Date, time, and location.
Reasoning:
When recording digital images of a crime scene, the most essential details to note are the date, time, and location. These details ensure the audit trail can accurately track when and where the photos were taken, providing a reliable chain of evidence. These entries also maintain transparency and support the credibility of the photographic evidence in court.
Why not B?
While file number range is useful for organizing and referencing digital images, it is secondary to the critical details of date, time, and location for maintaining the audit trail.
Why not C?
Including the camera make and model is unnecessary for the primary audit trail. This information is less relevant for establishing the authenticity and continuity of the photographic evidence.
Source:
New Zealand Police Photography Guidelines: Emphasizes recording core details like date, time, and location to maintain a proper audit trail for evidential images.
Evidence Act 2006: Highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence, including documentation of its creation and handling.
Question 323
Police are obliged to inform victims of:
A. The process for restorative justice and whom to contact.
B. How and when to complete a Victim Impact Statement.
C. Investigative progress and any impending charges or arrests.
C. Investigative progress and any impending charges or arrests.
Reasoning:
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 requires Police to keep victims informed about the progress of the investigation and provide updates on any impending charges or arrests. This is a key obligation under the Act to ensure victims are supported and aware of developments in their case.
Why not A?
While restorative justice is an option for some victims, the process and contacts are typically coordinated through restorative justice facilitators or the Ministry of Justice, not directly by Police as an obligation under the Victims’ Rights Act.
Why not B?
Although completing a Victim Impact Statement is essential for the court process, Police are not specifically obliged under the Act to provide this information as a primary duty. Instead, their role is to support victims by providing investigative updates.
Source:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Section 12 outlines the duty of Police to provide victims with information about the progress of the investigation and relevant outcomes.
New Zealand Police Victim Support Guidelines: Reinforce the importance of keeping victims informed as part of their engagement and support framework.
Question 324
Jack is 13. You stop him driving his father’s car. He is on his own. You ask Jack to consent to a search of the car. Which of the following statements is most correct? (S & S Section 95)
A. Jack is able to consent to the search of the vehicle. It is only a place or other thing he cannot consent to a search of.
B. Jack is able to consent to a search of the vehicle as there is no passenger over 14 in the vehicle who has authority over it and is able to consent to the vehicle search.
C. Jack is unable to consent to a search of the vehicle as persons under 13 are unable to consent to vehicle searches.
B. Jack is able to consent to a search of the vehicle as there is no passenger over 14 in the vehicle who has authority over it and is able to consent to the vehicle search.
Reasoning:
Under Section 95 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a person in lawful possession of a vehicle may provide consent for its search. Since Jack is in possession of the vehicle and there is no other person over the age of 14 present who could override his authority, Jack is deemed capable of giving consent for the search of the car. His age (13) does not restrict his ability to provide consent specifically for the vehicle, provided he is deemed to understand the implications of giving consent.
Why not A?
While Section 95 allows consent to search a vehicle, it applies only when the person in possession of the vehicle is deemed capable of understanding the implications. The wording in A inaccurately suggests a limitation unrelated to this scenario.
Why not C?
The statement in C is incorrect because there is no specific restriction under Section 95 preventing someone aged 13 from giving consent to a vehicle search, as long as they are in lawful possession of the vehicle.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 95 – Consent to search vehicles, places, or other items. This section specifies that consent may be provided by the person in lawful possession or control unless another authoritative individual is present.
Question 325
Under Section 15 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a constable may enter and search a place without warrant to avoid loss of evidential material relating to certain offences. The certain offence must carry:
A. A term of imprisonment of 10 years or more.
B. A term of imprisonment of 7 years or more.
C. A term of imprisonment of 14 years or more.
C. A term of imprisonment of 14 years or more.
Reasoning:
Under Section 15 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a constable is empowered to enter and search a place without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to prevent the loss, destruction, or concealment of evidential material. However, this power is limited to offences punishable by a term of imprisonment of 14 years or more. This high threshold ensures that such warrantless searches are used only in relation to the most serious offences.
Why not A?
The threshold of 10 years or more is incorrect for warrantless searches under Section 15. While other sections of law may involve a lower threshold for different purposes, Section 15 specifically applies to offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years or more.
Why not B?
Similarly, the threshold of 7 years is too low for the scope of Section 15. This section explicitly applies to serious offences carrying 14 years or more as the potential penalty.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 15: This section explicitly limits the warrantless search power to offences punishable by a term of imprisonment of 14 years or more.
Question 326
An offender kicks a victim several times in the torso and splits their spleen. Which of the following charges is the most appropriate?
A. With intent to cause grievous bodily harm, maims.
B. With intent to injure, injures.
C. With intent to injure, wounds.
Ji
With intent to injure, wounds.
Chat GPT
A. With intent to cause grievous bodily harm, maims.
Reasoning:
The injuries described—a ruptured spleen caused by repeated kicking—constitute grievous bodily harm under New Zealand law due to their severity and potential life-threatening nature. The term maims refers to causing a permanent or serious impairment to a person’s body, which aligns with the significant injury described.
The charge under Section 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 is appropriate, as the act of repeatedly kicking the victim with intent to cause such harm demonstrates an intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Why not B?
The charge of “with intent to injure, injures” is lesser and applies to situations where the intent is to cause only harm or injury rather than severe or life-threatening harm. Splitting the spleen is a severe injury that elevates this beyond “intent to injure.”
Why not C?
The term wounds typically refers to injuries where the skin is broken or lacerated. While “splitting a spleen” is an internal injury, it does not constitute a wound as legally defined.
Source:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 188(1): Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Legal definitions of maims and grievous bodily harm: Highlight the seriousness of the injuries inflicted and intent required for this charge.
Question 327
The decontamination zone model is used at a scene of a major crime because:
A. The forensic evidence it contains is contaminated.
B. The scene will contain both biological and physical evidence.
C. The scene requires a search plan that ensures close scrutiny.
B. The scene will contain both biological and physical evidence.
Reasoning:
The decontamination zone model is implemented at major crime scenes to minimize cross-contamination of biological and physical evidence. This model establishes distinct zones (e.g., hot, warm, and cold zones) to ensure the safe and controlled processing of evidence.
Biological evidence (e.g., blood, hair) and physical evidence (e.g., weapons, fibers) are critical in crime investigations, and the decontamination model ensures these are preserved properly without introducing contaminants from external sources or between different areas of the scene.
Why not A?
If the forensic evidence is already contaminated, the decontamination zone model would not retroactively fix the contamination. This model is designed to prevent contamination, not manage already-compromised evidence.
Why not C?
While a search plan is an important component of any scene investigation, the primary purpose of the decontamination zone model is to address the handling and preservation of evidence, particularly biological and physical evidence. Ensuring close scrutiny is a secondary outcome, not the main purpose.
Source:
Crime Scene Protocols: Importance of managing contamination risks in scenes involving mixed evidence types.
Forensic Procedures Manual: Emphasizes the use of zone models to control contamination and preserve evidence integrity.
Question 328
The O/C initial action party is responsible for effectively briefing and conducting handover to an O/C Scene on their arrival at a serious crime scene. What information is essential to the integrity of the crime scene examination?
A. Records of notebook entries, observations, and witness details.
B. Details of any post-incident movement in the crime scene.
C. All known details relating to the offender’s movements.
B. Details of any post-incident movement in the crime scene.
Reasoning:
For the integrity of the crime scene examination, it is critical that the O/C Initial Action party communicates any post-incident movements within the crime scene to the O/C Scene. This includes information such as who entered the scene, what was moved or altered, and any actions taken by first responders. Such details ensure that subsequent forensic examination can accurately account for changes and minimize the risk of evidence contamination or loss.
Why not A?
While notebook entries, observations, and witness details are important, they are not directly tied to maintaining the integrity of the crime scene itself. These details are more relevant for investigative leads rather than the physical preservation of the scene.
Why not C?
Details about the offender’s movements are relevant to the investigation but are not directly related to preserving the crime scene’s integrity. These are investigative details rather than operational information needed for the scene examination.
Source:
Crime Scene Protocols: Emphasizes the need to document and communicate all movements or actions taken at the scene to preserve evidence integrity.
Forensic Examination Guidelines: Highlights the importance of understanding and recording changes to the scene for accurate forensic analysis.
Question 329
What is the primary consideration when a suspect for a serious assault raises the issue of ‘self-defence’?
A. Whether the suspect’s actions were in proportion to the alleged threats made by the victim.
B. The injuries received by the victim as a result of the assault.
C. The actions by the victim prior to the assault.
Answer: A. Whether the suspect’s actions were in proportion to the alleged threats made by the victim.
Reasoning:
When a suspect raises the issue of self-defence, the central consideration is whether their actions were reasonable and proportionate to the threat they perceived. Self-defence is not an absolute right; it requires the force used to be objectively necessary and proportional to the threat faced by the suspect.
Option A: Whether the suspect’s actions were in proportion to the alleged threats made by the victim.
This is correct because proportionality is a key element of self-defence under New Zealand law. The actions of the suspect must be objectively reasonable in response to the level of threat or force used against them. If the response is excessive compared to the threat, self-defence may not be accepted by the court.
Option B: The injuries received by the victim as a result of the assault.
While the severity of the injuries may provide evidence of the level of force used, it does not directly determine whether the suspect acted in self-defence. The focus is on the proportionality of the force, not necessarily the outcome of the actions.
Option C: The actions by the victim prior to the assault.
The actions of the victim might be relevant in assessing the context of the threat but are not the primary consideration. The key factor is how the suspect responded to those actions and whether their response was proportional.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 48: Self-defence allows a person to use “reasonable force” in defence of themselves or others. The reasonableness is assessed based on proportionality and necessity.
Relevant case law: Courts consistently evaluate proportionality when determining whether self-defence is justified.
In summary, the primary consideration is whether the suspect’s actions were proportional to the threat, making A the correct answer.
Question 330
What are the Police responsibilities to the victim when a section 29 suspect is released on bail?
A. Police must inform the suspect if the victim has opposed bail and the conditions sought by the victim.
B. Police must advise all victims, as soon as practicable, of the outcome and conditions of any bail application.
C. Police must advise the victim support agency working with the victim that the suspect was bailed by the court.
B. Police must advise all victims, as soon as practicable, of the outcome and conditions of any bail application.
Reasoning:
The Victims’ Rights Act 2002 ensures that victims, particularly of serious offences such as those listed under section 29, are kept informed about the progress and outcomes of court processes, including bail conditions. This obligation is a fundamental part of the Police’s duty to support and communicate with victims in these cases.
Option A: Police must inform the suspect if the victim has opposed bail and the conditions sought by the victim.
This is incorrect because Police are not required to disclose details of a victim’s opposition or their preferences regarding bail conditions to the suspect. This would breach the victim’s privacy and could endanger their safety.
Option B: Police must advise all victims, as soon as practicable, of the outcome and conditions of any bail application.
This is correct because it aligns with the obligations outlined in the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. Victims of section 29 offences have a right to be informed of bail outcomes, including any conditions imposed, so they can take steps to protect themselves if necessary.
Option C: Police must advise the victim support agency working with the victim that the suspect was bailed by the court.
While Police may collaborate with victim support agencies to provide assistance, their primary responsibility is to communicate directly with the victim about the suspect’s bail status and conditions. Informing the victim support agency alone does not fulfill this responsibility.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 29: This section lists offences that require special victim protections and outlines the obligations to keep victims informed.
New Zealand Police Manual (Victim Support Policies): Emphasizes that victims must be notified promptly about decisions affecting their safety, including bail outcomes.
In summary, Police are legally and ethically required to inform the victim directly about the outcome of any bail application and associated conditions, making B the correct answer.
Question 331
Jake is arrested for burglary by Porirua police. He states that evidential material from that offence can be found at an address in Rotorua. Jake says his mates are on their way to pick it up. What course of action should Porirua police take?
A. Ask Rotorua police to conduct a warrantless s83 search on the address.
B. Apply for a SW and ask Rotorua police to secure the address under s117.
C. Ask Rotorua police to carry out a consent search on the address.
Answer: B. Apply for a SW and ask Rotorua police to secure the address under s117.
Reasoning:
When there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidential material may be removed or destroyed, Police must act swiftly and lawfully to secure the evidence. Section 117 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows Police to secure a location while a search warrant (SW) is being sought, ensuring the evidence is preserved without conducting a premature or warrantless search unless legally justified.
Option A: Ask Rotorua police to conduct a warrantless s83 search on the address.
This is incorrect because section 83 applies only when there is an urgent need to conduct a warrantless search due to imminent risk of loss or destruction of evidential material. However, in this case, the urgency can be mitigated by securing the location under s117 while a search warrant is applied for.
Option B: Apply for a SW and ask Rotorua police to secure the address under s117.
This is correct. Applying for a search warrant is the appropriate action when there is time to secure the location without immediately risking the destruction of evidence. Section 117 allows Rotorua police to secure the address until the SW is obtained, ensuring legal compliance while protecting the evidential material.
Option C: Ask Rotorua police to carry out a consent search on the address.
This is incorrect because relying on consent is risky and may not guarantee access to the address. The occupants may refuse, leaving the Police unable to search or secure the evidence. A search warrant is a more robust and legally sound approach.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 117: Provides the authority to secure a place pending the issuance of a search warrant.
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 83: Allows for warrantless searches in cases of urgency but requires strict justification.
New Zealand Police Search Warrant Guidelines: Emphasize the use of search warrants where time permits to ensure the legality of evidence collection.
In conclusion, B is the correct course of action, as it balances the need to secure evidence with adherence to legal requirements.
Question 332
When planning an interview with a special consideration (vulnerable) witness, the investigator should:
A. Prepare to use Conversation Management to maximise the witness account.
B. Consult a supervisor to make decisions about the interview.
C. Conduct the interview promptly to avoid memory loss.
Answer: B. Consult a supervisor to make decisions about the interview.
Reasoning:
When planning an interview with a special consideration witness (vulnerable witness), careful planning and consultation are crucial. These witnesses often require additional safeguards and accommodations to ensure the interview is fair, effective, and compliant with legal and ethical guidelines. Consulting a supervisor helps ensure that the appropriate approach and resources (e.g., specialist interviewers) are used and that the interview plan complies with best practices.
Option A: Prepare to use Conversation Management to maximise the witness account.
This is incorrect because Conversation Management is a technique typically used for suspects, not vulnerable witnesses. Vulnerable witnesses may require specialized interview techniques, such as those outlined in the Cognitive Interview model, to elicit accurate and comprehensive information.
Option B: Consult a supervisor to make decisions about the interview.
This is correct. Vulnerable witnesses may need special accommodations, such as the presence of a support person, adjustments to the interview setting, or the involvement of a specialist interviewer. Consulting a supervisor ensures these considerations are addressed and that the interview is conducted lawfully and appropriately.
Option C: Conduct the interview promptly to avoid memory loss.
While it is important to avoid unnecessary delays, this is not the primary consideration. Ensuring the witness is comfortable, prepared, and able to provide reliable information is more critical than rushing the process. Planning and consulting with a supervisor help address these priorities.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Investigative Interviewing Guidelines: Highlight the need for planning and consultation when interviewing vulnerable witnesses.
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Emphasizes the need for special considerations for vulnerable witnesses.
Cognitive Interview Techniques: Commonly used for obtaining detailed and accurate information from witnesses, especially those who may be vulnerable.
In conclusion, B is the correct answer, as it ensures the interview is conducted appropriately and with the necessary considerations for the witness’s needs.
Question 333
You arrest a young woman in the crowded smoking area outside a bar as you have RGTB she is in possession of drugs and RGTS she is distributing drugs to others. You give your obligations and conduct a rub-down search, including putting your hands inside the pockets of the zipped-up jacket she is wearing. She is abusive and uncooperative. You demand she removes her jacket, and when she does, you find she is wearing only underwear. A lawyer might challenge your search on the principle of:
A. Reasonable grounds.
B. Lawfulness.
C. Reasonableness.
Answer: C. Reasonableness.
Reasoning:
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, all searches conducted by police must meet a standard of reasonableness. While the search in this scenario was lawful and based on reasonable grounds (RGTB and RGTS), the manner in which it was carried out—demanding the removal of a jacket in a crowded public area—could be seen as unreasonable due to the risk of unnecessary embarrassment or humiliation for the young woman.
Option A: Reasonable grounds.
This is incorrect because reasonable grounds relate to the justification for initiating the search (RGTB for possession of drugs and RGTS for distribution). In this case, the officer clearly had reasonable grounds to conduct the search.
Option B: Lawfulness.
This is incorrect because the search itself was lawful under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. The issue does not concern whether the search was authorized by law but rather how it was carried out.
Option C: Reasonableness.
This is correct because the reasonableness of the search is a fundamental principle under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. Conducting a search in a public area that exposed the woman to embarrassment could be deemed unreasonable, even if the search was lawful.
Key Considerations:
Reasonableness under NZBORA: Searches must not subject individuals to unnecessary embarrassment, even if they are justified by law.
Alternative Measures: In this scenario, the search could have been conducted in a private area to mitigate potential humiliation.
Legal Precedents: Courts have ruled that searches must balance the interests of justice with the rights and dignity of the individual.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Provides grounds and procedures for lawful searches.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 21: Protects against unreasonable search or seizure.
Case Law: Highlights that the manner of the search must always meet a standard of reasonableness.
In conclusion, while the search was lawful and based on reasonable grounds, it could be challenged on the principle of reasonableness due to the potential for unnecessary embarrassment caused by its execution in a public area. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Question 334
Section 110 allows you to use reasonable force for the purposes of carrying out a search and seizure in respect of:
A. Any property you can lawfully search.
B. Any person hindering your search.
C. Property and any person hindering your search.
A. Any property you can lawfully search.
Section 110 Search and Surveillance Act 2012
Every search power authorises the person exercising it—
(a)
to enter and search the place, vehicle, or other thing that the person is authorised to enter and search, and any item or items found in that place or vehicle or thing, at any time that is reasonable:
(b)
to request any person to assist with the entry and search (including, without limitation, a member of a hapū or an iwi if the place to be entered is of cultural or spiritual significance to that hapū or iwi):
(c)
to use any force in respect of any property that is reasonable for the purposes of carrying out the search and any lawful seizure:
(d)
to seize anything that is the subject of the search or anything else that may be lawfully seized:
(e)
to bring and use in or on the place, vehicle, or other thing searched any equipment, to use any equipment found on the place, vehicle, or other thing, and to extract any electricity from the place, vehicle, or other thing to operate the equipment that it is reasonable to use in the circumstances, for the purposes of carrying out the entry and search:
(f)
to bring and use in or on the place, vehicle, or other thing searched a dog (being a dog that is trained to undertake searching for law enforcement purposes and that is under the control of its usual handler):
(g)
to copy any document, or part of a document, that may lawfully be seized:
(h)
to use any reasonable measures to access a computer system or other data storage device located (in whole or in part) at the place, vehicle, or other thing if any intangible material that is the subject of the search may be in that computer system or other device:
(i)
if any intangible material accessed under paragraph (h) is the subject of the search or may otherwise be lawfully seized, to copy that material (including by means of previewing, cloning, or other forensic methods either before or after removal for examination):
(j)
to take photographs, sound and video recordings, and drawings of the place, vehicle, or other thing searched, and of any thing found in or on that place, vehicle, or other thing, if the person exercising the power has reasonable grounds to believe that the photographs or sound or video recordings or drawings may be relevant to the purposes of the entry and search.
Question 335
The initial action party at the scene of a serious crime must work quickly to:
A. Collect sufficient information to brief the O/C scene.
B. Remove people from the scene to reduce further contamination.
C. Establish hot, warm, and cold zones.
Answer: B. Remove people from the scene to reduce further contamination.
Reasoning:
The primary responsibility of the initial action party at the scene of a serious crime is to preserve the scene and prevent contamination. Removing people from the crime scene ensures that evidence is not disturbed or contaminated, maintaining the integrity of the investigation.
Option A: Collect sufficient information to brief the O/C scene.
Incorrect. While collecting information is essential, it is not the immediate priority. The first priority is to secure and protect the scene to prevent evidence loss or contamination. Information collection can occur after the scene is preserved.
Option B: Remove people from the scene to reduce further contamination.
Correct. Preserving the crime scene is paramount. The initial action team must secure the area by removing unauthorized individuals, ensuring no further contamination or disturbance of evidence.
Option C: Establish hot, warm, and cold zones.
Incorrect. Establishing zones is part of the scene management process but is secondary to securing the scene and removing people. Zones are typically set up once the scene is stabilized.
Key Considerations:
Preservation of Evidence: Ensuring evidence remains unaltered is critical for the investigation and subsequent court proceedings.
Scene Integrity: Unauthorized individuals can inadvertently or intentionally contaminate evidence, making it inadmissible in court.
Legal and Investigative Standards: Properly securing the scene aligns with police procedures and best practices for crime scene management.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Crime Scene Policy: Emphasizes securing the scene as the top priority for initial responders.
Best Practices in Crime Scene Preservation: Guides on preventing contamination and maintaining chain of custody for evidence.
In conclusion, B is the correct answer as removing people from the scene is the most immediate and critical step to ensure the integrity of the crime scene.
Question 336
Ensuring the admissibility of forensic evidence presented to the court requires understanding of which of the following groups of words:
A. Contaminate, relevance, integrity, security.
B. Relevance, oppression, veracity, reliability.
C. Persistence, contaminate, inference, secure.
Answer: A. Contaminate, relevance, integrity, security.
Reasoning:
The admissibility of forensic evidence in court depends on maintaining its integrity, relevance, and security, as well as ensuring it is free from contamination. These principles ensure the evidence can withstand scrutiny and is legally permissible.
Option A: Contaminate, relevance, integrity, security.
Correct. These terms are critical for ensuring the forensic evidence is admissible:
Contaminate: Avoiding contamination ensures the evidence is not altered or compromised.
Relevance: Evidence must be relevant to the case and the charges.
Integrity: Maintaining the chain of custody preserves the evidence’s authenticity.
Security: Ensuring the evidence is securely stored prevents tampering or loss.
Option B: Relevance, oppression, veracity, reliability.
Incorrect. While relevance and reliability are important, oppression and veracity relate more to suspect interviews and statements rather than forensic evidence. This option does not fully address the considerations for maintaining physical evidence.
Option C: Persistence, contaminate, inference, secure.
Incorrect. While some terms like contaminate and secure are relevant, persistence and inference do not directly relate to the admissibility of forensic evidence. Persistence refers to investigative behavior, and inference relates to drawing conclusions.
Key Considerations:
Chain of Custody: Ensures evidence is documented and preserved from the crime scene to court.
Avoiding Contamination: Protects the evidence’s original state, making it credible in court.
Relevance: Ensures the evidence is directly tied to the investigation and charges.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Evidence Handling Guidelines: Best practices for securing and preserving forensic evidence.
Evidence Act 2006 (NZ): Legal requirements for evidence to be admissible in court.
In conclusion, A is the correct answer as it encapsulates the critical principles required for ensuring the admissibility of forensic evidence in court.
Question 337
John and Harry attend the same party. John dislikes Harry as he now goes out with Harry’s ex-girlfriend. John approaches Harry, forms a fist and says, “Leave now or you will get this fist in your face.” Harry quickly leaves, and you investigate the incident. Which of the following statements is true?
A. This cannot be an offence of ‘assault’ as John had no intention of ever harming Harry unless Harry failed to leave the party.
B. This is an offence of ‘assault’ as Harry was threatened by John by his words and gesture, and the placing of a condition on the threat does not negate the offence.
C. This cannot be an offence of ‘assault’ as no force was applied to Harry, and ‘threatening behaviour’ would be a more suitable charge.
Answer: B. This is an offence of ‘assault’ as Harry was threatened by John by his words and gesture, and the placing of a condition on the threat does not negate the offence.
Reasoning
Under the Crimes Act 1961, an assault includes any act or gesture that intentionally causes another person to fear the application of force. The elements required to constitute an assault are:
Intent to cause fear of force, and
A reasonable apprehension of force in the victim.
In this scenario:
John made a threatening statement (“you will get this fist in your face”) and accompanied it with a gesture (forming a fist).
Harry, as a result, reasonably feared harm and acted by leaving the party.
The conditional nature of the threat (“Leave now or…”) does not negate the offence because it still caused Harry to fear that John could harm him.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A:
Incorrect because John’s intent to harm is not required for an assault to occur. The act of creating a reasonable fear of force in Harry through words and gestures suffices to constitute an assault.
Option C:
Incorrect because the definition of assault does not require actual physical force. Threatening behaviour, accompanied by an intention to cause fear of force, is sufficient to meet the threshold for assault.
Sources
Crimes Act 1961, Section 2: Definition of “assault” includes threats of force.
New Zealand Police Manual on Assault: Clarifies that threats and gestures that cause reasonable fear in the victim qualify as assault, even if no physical force is applied.
Question 338
You have RGTB that stolen property is located in a garage at a local address and execute a search warrant. No one is present when you arrive, and you see the garage has a security alarm and it is armed. You use s110 and call a security technician to help you gain entry to the garage. You must then:
A. Request the technician contacts you when he has gained entry.
B. Accompany the technician on entry and provide reasonable supervision.
C. Provide detailed instructions about your request to the technician.
Answer: B. Accompany the technician on entry and provide reasonable supervision.
Reasoning
Under Section 110 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a constable executing a search warrant is permitted to use reasonable force and take necessary steps to gain access to the premises, including seeking assistance from qualified individuals. However, this assistance must be conducted under the direct supervision of the constable to ensure:
The integrity of the search: Prevent contamination or destruction of evidence.
Compliance with the warrant’s terms: The constable must ensure that the search is lawfully conducted.
In this scenario:
You are executing a search warrant under s110 and must ensure that the technician is supervised during entry and the subsequent process to prevent any actions that could affect the investigation or breach legal requirements.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A:
Incorrect because leaving the technician unsupervised could jeopardize the security and admissibility of evidence. You are required to maintain oversight during the execution of the warrant.
Option C:
Incorrect because while you can provide instructions, this alone is not sufficient. Active supervision is necessary to ensure that the actions comply with the warrant and legal standards.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 110: Allows reasonable force and assistance during a search but mandates oversight by the constable executing the warrant.
New Zealand Police Search Guidelines: Reinforces the importance of supervision during the execution of a warrant to protect evidence integrity.
Question 339
Under section 23 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, a person has the right to be treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity. Who does this section apply to?
A. Everyone arrested or detained.
B. Everyone.
C. Everyone charged with an offence.
Answer: A. Everyone arrested or detained.
Reasoning
Section 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 specifically applies to persons who have been arrested or detained. It ensures that they are treated with humanity, dignity, and respect, regardless of the circumstances of their arrest or detention.
Key points:
Scope of Application:
This section is directed at individuals under arrest or detention, emphasizing their rights during police custody or detention in other contexts.
Purpose:
To prevent cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and to uphold the dignity of individuals even when they are suspected of committing an offence.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option B (Everyone):
Incorrect because Section 23 does not apply to “everyone” in a general sense. It specifically applies to individuals who are under arrest or detention.
Option C (Everyone charged with an offence):
Incorrect because Section 23 applies to individuals from the point of arrest or detention, regardless of whether they are charged. Charging is a separate legal process that comes after arrest/detention.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Focuses on the rights of individuals who are arrested or detained.
New Zealand Police Manual: Reiterates the obligations to treat detained individuals with humanity and dignity in line with the Act.
Question 340
You are dispatched to a P1 event where a man who is on work release from a psychiatric institution has just threatened his neighbours with a small handgun. On arrival, you find the man sitting in his car in his driveway. Can you search without a warrant for the gun?
A. No, you cannot search the man or his vehicle as they are on private property.
B. Yes, you can search the man and his car and the neighbour’s property.
C. Yes, you can search the man, his car, anything in his possession, and his property.
Answer: C. Yes, you can search the man, his car, anything in his possession, and his property.
Reasoning
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 18 provides the authority to conduct a warrantless search when a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is in possession of a firearm in breach of the Arms Act 1983 or any other offence involving the firearm.
Key points:
Reasonable Grounds: The man has threatened his neighbors with a handgun, which constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that he is in possession of a firearm and poses an immediate threat to public safety.
Private Property: The driveway of the man’s residence does not limit police authority to conduct a warrantless search in such circumstances because public safety is the priority.
Scope of Search: Section 18 allows the search of:
The person (the man in this case),
Their vehicle (where the firearm may be located),
Anything in their possession or immediate control,
And any property they occupy if it is reasonable to believe it may contain the firearm.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A (No, you cannot search the man or his vehicle as they are on private property):
Incorrect because private property does not exempt a person from a warrantless search if there are reasonable grounds to suspect they are in possession of a firearm that poses an immediate threat.
Option B (Yes, you can search the man and his car and the neighbour’s property):
Incorrect because while the man’s car and person can be searched, the neighbor’s property cannot be searched unless separate reasonable grounds specific to the neighbor’s property exist.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 18: Provides police with the power to conduct a warrantless search for firearms if reasonable grounds exist.
Arms Act 1983: Addresses the illegal possession and use of firearms.
New Zealand Police Manual: Confirms operational protocols for warrantless searches involving firearms and public safety concerns.
Question 341
When there are multiple witnesses to a serious incident/offence, the investigator should:
A. Separate the witnesses, conduct a brief initial interview with each, and gather witness details.
B. Separate the witnesses as soon as feasible, ask them to wait, and call for advice and assistance.
C. Listen to their collective recall of events and assess who can provide the most accurate recall of the incident.
Answer: A. Separate the witnesses, conduct a brief initial interview with each, and gather witness details.
Reasoning
When investigating serious incidents or offences, witness management is critical to ensure the accuracy and reliability of their accounts. Proper witness handling involves separating individuals and obtaining their statements independently to avoid influencing each other’s recollections.
Separating the witnesses: Prevents the risk of collusion or contamination of testimonies. Witnesses discussing the event among themselves may alter their perceptions or converge on a shared (but inaccurate) narrative.
Conducting a brief initial interview: This establishes a clear record of what each individual saw or heard. Initial interviews are essential for understanding the scope of the incident and prioritizing follow-up actions.
Gathering witness details: Ensures investigators can follow up later for in-depth interviews or clarification, maintaining proper documentation of all potential sources of information.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option B:
While separating witnesses is correct, merely asking them to wait without conducting an initial interview risks losing valuable details, as witnesses may leave the scene or forget important information. Additionally, delaying action by waiting for advice could unnecessarily slow the investigation.
Option C:
Listening to a collective recall of events is inappropriate as it compromises the reliability of witness accounts. Cross-contamination of statements occurs when witnesses discuss the incident together, leading to inaccuracies and potential issues with credibility in court.
Sources
New Zealand Police Manual on Witness Management: Recommends separating witnesses and obtaining independent statements to preserve the integrity of evidence.
Evidential Best Practices: Highlights the importance of avoiding cross-contamination and ensuring witness accounts remain independent and unbiased.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Witness Handling: Stresses conducting individual interviews to maintain the reliability of witness evidence.
Question 342
When and why is a CSV1 required?
A. When there is a victim who will require an interpreter in court because their spoken English is not easily understood.
B. When there is a victim and the matter will proceed to District Court (or above) because the victim is entitled to specific services at the court.
C. When there is a victim but the Police officer who spoke with them will be unable to attend the court to support the victim.
Answer: B. When there is a victim and the matter will proceed to District Court (or above) because the victim is entitled to specific services at the court.
Reasoning
The CSV1 form is required to ensure victims are provided with the services they are entitled to under the law when a matter is progressing to the District Court or higher. It specifically ensures their rights and needs are addressed during court proceedings, aligning with the principles of victim care outlined in the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.
District Court or higher: The CSV1 ensures the court system is aware of the victim’s needs, including access to welfare, support, and other assistance required to participate in the judicial process effectively.
Entitlement to services: Victims involved in serious matters or proceedings beyond lower-level courts (such as traffic or summary offences) are entitled to additional protections and services, necessitating the CSV1 form.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A:
While interpreters may be required for victims with limited English, this alone does not necessitate a CSV1. The need for an interpreter would be managed under different procedural obligations, not the CSV1 requirement.
Option C:
The absence of the Police officer who initially interacted with the victim does not require a CSV1. The form is focused on ensuring victim access to court-specific services, not related to officer availability.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Mandates the provision of services to victims during court proceedings and ensures their participation is supported appropriately.
New Zealand Police Guidelines: Highlights the use of CSV1 for court matters proceeding to higher courts where victims are entitled to special services or support.
Victim Support Protocols: Reinforce the need to document victim requirements for higher court proceedings to ensure compliance with legal obligations.
Question 343
When must a victim of a Section 29 offence be advised of their right to be on the Victim Notification System (VNR)?
A. At first contact with the victim of a Section 29 offence.
B. Following the offender’s conviction and sentencing.
C. At the time of the offender’s arrest (if practicable).
Answer: C. At the time of the offender’s arrest (if practicable).
Reasoning
Victims of Section 29 offences (serious offences as outlined in the Victims’ Rights Act 2002) have the right to be informed of their entitlement to be added to the Victim Notification Register (VNR). This right ensures they are notified of important developments regarding the offender, such as release, parole, or escape.
At the time of the offender’s arrest: This is the most appropriate time for the Police to inform the victim of their VNR rights, as it ensures they are aware early in the process and can decide whether to be included on the register. If this is not practicable at the time, the information must still be provided as soon as possible.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A (At first contact with the victim):
While it’s important to provide support and information to victims early, VNR notification specifically relates to when an offender is charged or arrested, as this is when their inclusion on the register becomes relevant.
Option B (Following the offender’s conviction and sentencing):
Waiting until the conviction and sentencing stage would significantly delay the victim’s opportunity to participate in the notification process. The victim must have this right explained earlier in the process, at or soon after the time of arrest.
Sources
Victims’ Rights Act 2002 - Section 29 outlines the rights of victims to be informed of the Victim Notification Register.
New Zealand Police Victim Management Guidelines - Advises that victims of serious offences must be informed of their right to be on the VNR as early as practicable, ideally at the time of arrest.
Victim Notification System Protocols - Reinforces the need to provide victims with timely information to facilitate their inclusion in the system.
Question 344
Should a person who is intoxicated at an interview be treated as a special consideration witness?
A. Yes, because they will not fully understand the reason for the interview.
B. No, because alcohol only temporarily impairs their ability to talk.
C. Yes, because their ability to give accurate information is affected.
Answer: C. Yes, because their ability to give accurate information is affected.
Reasoning
An intoxicated person’s ability to provide clear and accurate information is impaired due to the effects of alcohol on their memory, perception, and comprehension. As such, they should be treated as a special consideration witness, ensuring that any statement they provide is taken under circumstances that uphold fairness and accuracy. This approach aligns with the principles of investigative interviewing, which require consideration of a person’s vulnerabilities.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A (Yes, because they will not fully understand the reason for the interview):
While intoxication may impair understanding, the primary concern is the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. The issue is not solely their ability to comprehend the purpose of the interview but rather their capacity to provide truthful and coherent responses.
Option B (No, because alcohol only temporarily impairs their ability to talk):
This is incorrect because the effects of intoxication are broader than just speech. Intoxication can impair memory recall, judgment, and the ability to respond logically to questions, which affects the overall reliability of the interview.
Sources
Investigative Interviewing Doctrine (NZ Police) - Highlights the importance of considering vulnerabilities, including intoxication, when interviewing witnesses or suspects.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23) - Ensures that individuals, particularly those with impairments, are treated fairly and their rights upheld.
Judicial Precedents on Interview Admissibility - Cases have highlighted that statements from intoxicated individuals may be excluded if their condition at the time of the interview affects the reliability of their account.
By treating an intoxicated person as a special consideration witness, the Police ensure fairness and protect the integrity of the evidence obtained.
Question 345
How should a waterlogged multi-paged document be packaged for delivery to the Document Examiner?
A. Allow it to dry naturally before placing it in a sealed bag.
B. Place the wet document in a plastic bag and leave it open.
C. Seal the wet document in an airtight container or bag.
Answer: C. Seal the wet document in an airtight container or bag.
Reasoning
A waterlogged document must be preserved in its current state to avoid further damage, such as tearing, smudging, or loss of information. Sealing the document in an airtight container or bag prevents additional water loss or contamination and ensures the document reaches the Document Examiner in a condition as close to its original state as possible. The Document Examiner is equipped to handle and recover such sensitive materials using specialized techniques.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A (Allow it to dry naturally before placing it in a sealed bag):
Allowing the document to dry naturally before packaging could lead to irreversible changes, such as curling, sticking of pages, or ink smudging. This would compromise the integrity of the evidence.
Option B (Place the wet document in a plastic bag and leave it open):
Leaving the bag open exposes the document to external contaminants, evaporation, and further deterioration. This option fails to protect the evidence adequately.
Sources
NZ Police Evidence Handling Guidelines - Emphasize preserving the state of wet or water-damaged evidence to ensure the integrity of the material.
Document Examination Best Practices - Highlight the importance of airtight packaging for water-damaged documents to prevent additional degradation before analysis.
Properly sealing the wet document ensures that it can be examined effectively without risking further damage.
Question 346
You are executing a search warrant on a known drug dealer’s house. At the house, you locate a vehicle. You have made no reference to the vehicle on the search warrant. Can you search this vehicle?
A. Yes, but only with the owner’s consent.
B. Yes, since the vehicle is within the property named on the warrant.
C. No, you will have to go and get another search warrant issued to search the vehicle.
Answer: B. Yes, since the vehicle is within the property named on the warrant.
Reasoning
When executing a search warrant on a property, the warrant generally covers all items within that property unless specifically excluded. If the vehicle is located within the boundaries of the property named in the search warrant, it is considered part of the property and can be searched under the authority of the existing warrant.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option A (Yes, but only with the owner’s consent):
Consent from the vehicle owner is not necessary if the vehicle is located within the property covered by the search warrant. The warrant provides lawful authority to search without needing additional consent.
Option C (No, you will have to go and get another search warrant issued to search the vehicle):
A separate search warrant is not required for a vehicle located within the property already named in the warrant. The scope of the original warrant includes such items unless otherwise specified.
Sources
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 - Provisions for executing search warrants indicate that all items and areas within the named property are subject to search unless specifically excluded.
NZ Police Search Warrant Guidelines - Clarify that vehicles located within the property boundaries specified in a warrant fall under its coverage unless explicitly excluded.
The inclusion of the vehicle within the boundaries of the warrant ensures the search is lawful without requiring additional documentation.
Question 347
When cautioning a suspect, you are not obliged to inform the suspect that:
A. They can decide with a lawyer whether to go on video or not.
B. They can have a lawyer present at the interview free of charge.
C. Police may use any statement they make as evidence.
Answer: A. They can decide with a lawyer whether to go on video or not.
Reasoning
When cautioning a suspect, Police are required to advise the suspect of their legal rights, including:
The right to remain silent and the fact that anything they say may be used in evidence.
The right to consult with a lawyer and have a lawyer present during questioning, free of charge.
However, the option for the suspect to decide with a lawyer whether to go on video is not a legal obligation that must be communicated as part of the caution. The use of video recordings in interviews is standard practice and not contingent on this specific decision.
Why Not the Other Options?
Option B (They can have a lawyer present at the interview free of charge):
This is a fundamental right guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23). Police are required to inform suspects of this right as part of the caution.
Option C (Police may use any statement they make as evidence):
This is a key element of the caution to ensure the suspect understands the implications of their statements. It is legally required under New Zealand law to ensure the suspect’s awareness of potential consequences.
Sources
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23 - Outlines the rights of individuals who are arrested or detained, including the right to consult with a lawyer and the use of statements as evidence.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning - Provides guidelines on the requirements for cautioning suspects.
Informing the suspect about their rights to silence and legal representation is mandatory, but deciding with a lawyer about video use is not part of the required caution.
Question 348
In which zone would Police first photograph material?
A. Hot.
B. Warm.
C. Cold.
Answer:
A. Hot.
Explanation:
The “hot zone” refers to the immediate and most critical area of the crime scene where the offense occurred or evidence is most concentrated. Photographing in this zone is prioritized to preserve and document material before any potential contamination occurs.
Why not the other options?
B. Warm: The warm zone is a buffer area where secondary activities, like equipment staging, occur. This zone is not where initial photography would take place.
C. Cold: The cold zone is a safe area where there is no evidence and serves as a control point for scene access. Photography is not focused here.
Source:
Crime Scene Protocols and Initial Actions (NZ Police Guidelines).
Question 349
Where you have RGTS that an offence is being committed that is likely to cause injury to any person, you may enter the place or vehicle without a warrant and:
A. Take any action that you have RGTB is necessary.
B. Take practicable action that you have RGTB is necessary.
C. Take reasonable action that you have RGTS is necessary.
A. Take any action that you have RGTB is necessary.
Explanation:
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, section 14 permits entry to a place or vehicle without a warrant if you have reasonable grounds to suspect (RGTS) that an offence is being committed that is likely to cause injury to any person. Once you enter, you may take any action that you have reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) is necessary to prevent harm or further offences.
Why not the other options?
B. Take practicable action that you have RGTB is necessary: The term “practicable” is not used in the statutory provision, which focuses on the reasonableness and necessity of actions.
C. Take reasonable action that you have RGTS is necessary: The statute specifies RGTB (reasonable grounds to believe) as the threshold for taking action once inside, not RGTS.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, section 14 – Powers for preventing harm or injury.
Question 350
Entomology is the science of studying:
A. DNA.
B. Insects.
C. Fingerprints.
B. Insects.
Explanation:
Entomology is the study of insects. In forensic science, forensic entomology refers to the use of insect evidence to determine time of death, location of a crime, or other critical details related to an investigation. For example, examining the lifecycle of flies on a corpse can provide clues about how long someone has been deceased.
Why not the other options?
A. DNA: DNA analysis is part of molecular biology or genetics, not entomology.
C. Fingerprints: The study of fingerprints falls under dactyloscopy or forensic fingerprint analysis, not entomology.
Source:
Forensic science textbooks and general biological sciences.
Question 351
You are called to an aggravated robbery at a liquor store. As you arrive, the offender decamps, but you chase and apprehend a 15-year-old youth. Before you have time to question him, he states, “I didn’t mean to shoot the guy.” Which of the following statements best describes the admissibility of the confession?
A. His confession is inadmissible due to his age and the protection of the CYPF Act 1989.
B. His confession is admissible, but he must be cautioned as soon as possible.
C. His confession is inadmissible because you have not cautioned the youth.
B. His confession is admissible, but he must be cautioned as soon as possible.
Explanation:
A spontaneous statement made by a suspect, even a youth, can be admissible if it is not solicited or coerced. In this case, the youth voluntarily made the statement without being prompted by questioning or other police actions. However, since the youth is a special consideration suspect under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, you must administer a caution as soon as practical to ensure their rights are protected.
Why not the other options?
A. His confession is inadmissible due to his age and the protection of the CYPF Act 1989: While the CYPF Act provides protections for youth, it does not automatically render spontaneous confessions inadmissible. If made voluntarily, such statements can be used as evidence.
C. His confession is inadmissible because you have not cautioned the youth: The absence of a caution does not affect the admissibility of a spontaneous and unprompted statement. However, a caution must be administered before any further questioning.
Source:
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (Section 215): Guidance on rights and cautions for youth suspects.
Case Law: Spontaneous admissions are treated differently from responses to police questioning.
Question 352
An unknown informant calls police saying John is outside the local college selling cannabis. On arrival, you observe John talking to and exchanging money for tinfoil packages with two students. Can you conduct a warrantless search of John for cannabis?
A. Yes, because you have RGTB evidential material will be CADD.
B. No, because John is not in or on any place or vehicle being searched.
C. Yes, because you have RGTS an offence against MODA 1975 is being committed.
C. Yes, because you have RGTS an offence against MODA 1975 is being committed.
Explanation:
Under section 20 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a warrantless search can be conducted if there are Reasonable Grounds to Suspect (RGTS) that an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MODA) is being committed. In this scenario:
Observing John exchanging money for tinfoil packages with students creates reasonable grounds to suspect he is engaged in selling cannabis, a MODA offence.
The police can lawfully search John under these circumstances.
Why not the other options?
A. Yes, because you have RGTB evidential material will be CADD:
“Reasonable Grounds to Believe (RGTB)” applies when there is strong evidence or certainty that material is at risk of being Concealed, Altered, Damaged, or Destroyed (CADD). However, this scenario fits the RGTS threshold, not RGTB, as suspicion arises from observed behavior.
B. No, because John is not in or on any place or vehicle being searched:
This is incorrect because a person can be searched under RGTS of a MODA offence, regardless of whether they are inside a vehicle or building.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 20: Warrantless searches for controlled drugs.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975: Governs offences related to controlled substances.
Police Manual: Warrantless search powers under MODA offences.
Question 353
Who is responsible for ascertaining the victim’s views on bail of a person accused of a Section 29 offence?
A. The court will more than likely question the victim to ascertain their view about bail.
B. Victim Support or another reputable support agency usually presents the victim’s views to the court.
C. Police must ascertain the victim’s views and ensure the court is informed of those views.
C. Police must ascertain the victim’s views and ensure the court is informed of those views.
Explanation:
Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 30 requires Police to:
Ascertain the victim’s views on bail for a person accused of a Section 29 offence (serious offences).
Inform the court of these views when the matter is being considered.
This ensures that the victim’s concerns and preferences are taken into account during the bail decision process.
Why not the other options?
A. The court will more than likely question the victim to ascertain their view about bail:
The responsibility to inform the court about the victim’s views rests with the Police, not the court. The court relies on information presented by Police.
B. Victim Support or another reputable support agency usually presents the victim’s views to the court:
While Victim Support may assist victims and provide emotional support, it is not their role to present bail-related information to the court.
Source:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 30: Victims’ views on bail.
Police Manual: Guidelines on victim care and responsibilities during the bail process.
Question 354
Which of the following persons would not be considered suitable for the role of nominated person for a young person?
A. A person nominated by the Police when the young person refuses to do so.
B. A close friend or classmate nominated by the young person.
C. An adult member of the young person’s whanau nominated by the teen.
A. A person nominated by the Police when the young person refuses to do so.
Explanation:
Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, a nominated person is someone who can support the young person during the investigation or interview process. They must be someone who:
Understands the young person’s needs.
Is trusted and chosen by the young person where possible.
Is not biased or aligned with the investigating authorities.
If the young person refuses to nominate someone, Police cannot impose a person of their choosing as a “nominated person.” Instead, other appropriate avenues (e.g., whānau or support organizations) must be explored.
Why not the other options?
B. A close friend or classmate nominated by the young person:
A close friend or classmate may be suitable if they are trusted by the young person and understand the support role required.
C. An adult member of the young person’s whanau nominated by the teen:
This is generally considered a suitable option, provided the whānau member is not involved in the offence or otherwise inappropriate (e.g., has conflicting interests).
Source:
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, Sections 215–221.
Police Manual: Guidelines on interviewing young persons and the role of a nominated person.
Question 355
When planning an interview with a special consideration witness (vulnerable witness), the investigator should:
A. Consult a supervisor to make decisions about the interview.
B. Conduct the interview promptly to avoid memory loss.
C. Prepare to use Conversation Management to maximise the witness account.
A. Consult a supervisor to make decisions about the interview.
Explanation:
When dealing with special consideration (vulnerable) witnesses, the investigator must ensure the process is handled appropriately to protect the witness’s rights and obtain reliable evidence. Consulting a supervisor ensures the following:
Special considerations are met: The supervisor can confirm the necessary protocols (e.g., use of a specialist interviewer or support person).
Fairness and legality: Decisions regarding interview techniques and environment are reviewed for fairness and compliance with the law.
Coordination of resources: Supervisors can help organize any additional resources needed, such as an appropriate setting or professional support for the witness.
Why not the other options?
B. Conduct the interview promptly to avoid memory loss:
While timely interviews are important, the process for a vulnerable witness requires extra care, preparation, and adherence to protocol, which outweighs the need for immediacy.
C. Prepare to use Conversation Management to maximise the witness account:
Conversation Management is generally more suited for suspects than vulnerable witnesses. Vulnerable witnesses often require approaches tailored to their needs, such as rapport-building and open-ended questioning.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Manual: Special considerations for vulnerable witnesses.
Evidence Act 2006, Section 103: Protections for vulnerable witnesses.
Best practice guidelines: Investigative interviewing doctrine.
Question 356
Sandra is 18 years old and has a reputation for being a fighter. Aroha is sitting at the bus stop when Sandra comes up and tells Aroha that she likes the jacket she is wearing. Aroha knows that Sandra was involved in a fight last week, so she takes off her jacket, gives it to Sandra, and then runs away. What offence has Sandra committed?
A. Demanding with menaces.
B. Theft.
C. No offence.
C. No offence.
Explanation:
For an offence to be committed in this scenario, specific legal elements must be present. In this case:
Demanding with menaces: This requires Sandra to have intentionally used a threat or menace to obtain the jacket. While Aroha may have perceived a threat due to Sandra’s reputation, Sandra’s words and actions (saying she liked the jacket) do not explicitly or implicitly constitute a demand or menace.
Theft: Theft requires dishonest intent to permanently deprive someone of their property. Sandra did not force or deceive Aroha into giving up her jacket, and her mere acceptance of it does not satisfy the elements of theft.
Since Aroha voluntarily handed over the jacket out of fear or assumption, but without explicit menace or deception, Sandra’s actions do not meet the threshold for an offence.
Why not the other options?
A. Demanding with menaces:
There was no demand or explicit menace. Sandra did not coerce or threaten Aroha in any way. Aroha acted on her own assumptions based on Sandra’s reputation.
B. Theft:
Theft requires dishonesty and an intention to take property unlawfully. Sandra neither deceived Aroha nor acted dishonestly—she simply accepted the jacket when Aroha handed it over.
Sources:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 219: Theft defined.
Crimes Act 1961, Section 239: Demanding with menaces defined.
New Zealand Police Manual: Elements of theft and demanding with menaces.
Question 357
Jill is recorded on CCTV shoplifting a trolley full of wine from a local supermarket. Soon after, you drive by her house and see there is a party in full swing. You enter her property under s8 and arrest Jill at her front door. Can you lawfully search her house for the wine without a search warrant?
A. Yes, because you have CCTV evidence that she stole the wine, you can search the house under s8.
B. Yes, because you have RGTS that evidential material will be CADD if entry is delayed to obtain a search warrant.
C. Yes, because you have RGTB that the evidential material will be CADD if entry is delayed to get a search warrant.
C. Yes, because you have RGTB that the evidential material will be CADD if entry is delayed to get a search warrant.
Reasoning:
Under Section 8 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a search without a warrant is permitted only under specific circumstances. To justify a warrantless search, there must be reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) that evidential material is at risk of being concealed, altered, damaged, or destroyed (CADD) if the search is delayed to obtain a warrant.
In this scenario, the wine is the evidential material linked to the offence. There is a reasonable belief that evidence could be consumed or destroyed (e.g., opened and consumed during the party) if police wait to obtain a warrant.
Option A is incorrect because CCTV evidence, while useful, does not automatically allow warrantless entry and search under s8. A legal justification, such as RGTB for CADD, is still required.
Option B is incorrect because RGTS (reasonable grounds to suspect) is a lower threshold than RGTB and does not justify a search under these circumstances. The standard for a warrantless search under s8 is RGTB.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 8 (warrantless entry and search to prevent evidential material from being CADD).
Question 358
When explaining the caution to an adult suspect who suffers from an intellectual disability, you should give them their rights and:
A. Ask them to repeat the caution so you can check their understanding.
B. Ask their support person to repeat the caution to confirm the suspect understands.
C. Ask them to tell you in their own words what the caution means to them.
C. Ask them to tell you in their own words what the caution means to them.
Reasoning:
When dealing with an adult suspect with an intellectual disability, it is essential to ensure that they genuinely understand their rights. Simply repeating the caution or having a support person confirm understanding is insufficient for checking comprehension. Asking the suspect to explain the caution in their own words helps to verify their level of understanding and ensures that their rights are protected.
Option A is incorrect because having the suspect repeat the caution does not confirm they understand it; they may simply parrot the words without comprehension.
Option B is incorrect because relying on the support person to confirm understanding does not guarantee that the suspect themselves understands their rights, which could lead to a challenge to the admissibility of any statements made.
Option C is correct because asking the suspect to express the caution in their own words ensures they understand the significance of their rights and allows for any necessary clarification.
Sources:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23(1)(b): Right to be informed of rights in a way the person can understand.
Police Manual: Interviewing Vulnerable Persons: Emphasizes confirming understanding by asking the suspect to explain rights in their own words.
Question 359
CADD stands for:
A. Concealed, altered, deleted, destroyed.
B. Concealed, adjusted, deleted, destroyed.
C. Concealed, altered, damaged, destroyed.
Answer: C. Concealed, altered, damaged, destroyed.
Reasoning:
CADD is an acronym used in law enforcement to describe the potential risks to evidential material if action is delayed. Each term highlights a specific way evidence can be compromised:
Concealed: The evidence could be hidden to prevent its discovery.
Altered: The evidence could be tampered with, potentially changing its original state.
Damaged: The evidence could be harmed, reducing its usefulness in an investigation.
Destroyed: The evidence could be completely eliminated.
Option A is incorrect because “deleted” is not a typical term applied to physical evidential material.
Option B is incorrect because “adjusted” is not the proper terminology used in this context.
Option C is correct as it accurately reflects the language and focus of CADD in relation to evidence management.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Outlines considerations for urgent action to prevent loss or compromise of evidential material.
Police Operational Guidelines: Defines CADD and its application in situations involving the protection of evidence.
Question 360
The purpose of the victim notification register (VNR) is to:
A. Ensure follow-up support is provided for all victims of s29 sexual offences.
B. Ensure the victim is notified about the offender’s status and location, so that the victim’s safety can be managed.
C. Ensure accountability for all agencies dealing with the victims throughout the judicial process.
Answer: B. Ensure the victim is notified about the offender’s status and location, so that the victim’s safety can be managed.
Reasoning:
The Victim Notification Register (VNR) is designed to ensure victims of serious offences (such as those listed in Section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002) are kept informed about significant changes in the status of the offender. This includes:
Release from custody,
Parole decisions,
Escape,
Transfers, or
Death of the offender.
This information enables victims to take steps to manage their safety and emotional well-being.
Option A is incorrect because while follow-up support is important, it is not the primary purpose of the VNR.
Option C is incorrect because while accountability is critical, the VNR is specifically about notifying victims about offender status, not holding agencies accountable.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 30-36: Specifies the rights of victims to be informed about the status of offenders.
Police Guidelines on Victim Support and Notification Systems: Clarifies the purpose of the VNR and victim notification obligations.
Question 361
In relation to opposing bail for a person charged with a Section 29 offence, Police must:
A. Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail.
B. Tell the victim that Police will oppose bail because the suspect should remain in custody.
C. Ascertain the victim’s views and agree on acceptable conditions for the suspect’s bail.
Answer: A. Make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the court is informed of the victim’s views on bail.
Reasoning:
Victims of Section 29 offences (serious offences, such as sexual or violent crimes) have a right under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 to have their views considered in bail decisions. Police are required to:
Ascertain the victim’s views on bail.
Communicate these views to the court in a timely and accurate manner.
Ensure the victim’s safety concerns are brought to the court’s attention.
This ensures that the victim’s concerns are considered when bail conditions are being set or denied.
Option B is incorrect because Police cannot guarantee bail opposition or pre-determine the court’s decision. They are obligated to inform the court of the victim’s views, not to promise opposition or particular outcomes.
Option C is incorrect because Police do not “agree” on bail conditions with the victim. Their role is to report the victim’s views and safety concerns, while the court determines the conditions.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 30(4): Specifies the role of Police in communicating victims’ views on bail.
Police Guidelines on Victim Safety and Bail Conditions: Emphasizes the duty of Police to consult victims and present their views to the court.
Question 362
Immediately before you ask a suspect to give their account of the events in question, you should explain:
A. The events leading to the suspect agreeing to be interviewed.
B. What will happen with the video record after the interview.
C. The evidence you have and its significance for the suspect.
Answer: A. The events leading to the suspect agreeing to be interviewed.
Reasoning:
Before a suspect is asked to provide their account, it is essential to explain the context and process that led to the interview. This explanation ensures that the suspect understands why they are being interviewed and what the focus of the interview is. It sets a clear and fair foundation for the questioning process and ensures compliance with legal and procedural requirements.
Option B is incorrect because explaining what will happen with the video record is a procedural point that can be addressed at the start or end of the interview, not necessarily right before obtaining the suspect’s account.
Option C is incorrect because presenting evidence and discussing its significance is part of the challenge phase of the interview, which occurs later in the process, not before the suspect’s initial account.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Manual on Investigative Interviewing: Highlights the need to provide a clear explanation of the interview process to ensure fairness and transparency.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Recommends ensuring the suspect understands the process before being questioned.
Question 363
COMMS will assist with serious scene coordination by contacting forensic specialists required. As a general rule, which forensic specialist will be called first to attend the scene?
A. A photographer.
B. A SOCO or Fingerprint expert.
C. An ESR scientist.
A photographer.
Reasoning:
When coordinating a response to a serious crime scene, the priority is often to document the scene thoroughly before any potential disturbance occurs. A photographer is typically the first forensic specialist called because:
Their role is to capture the scene as it is found, preserving visual evidence of its original state. This includes taking wide-angle shots, close-ups of potential evidence, and documenting the layout of the scene for later analysis.
Photographs provide a critical record for investigators, forensic analysts, and the court, ensuring that the scene’s condition is accurately preserved.
Why not the other options?
Option B: A SOCO or Fingerprint expert
SOCOs or Fingerprint experts typically attend the scene after it has been documented by a photographer. Their work often involves handling or collecting physical evidence, which can potentially disturb the scene.
Option C: An ESR scientist
ESR scientists (specialists in areas such as blood pattern analysis, DNA, or toxicology) are usually called later in the process if their expertise is specifically required. They rely on the documentation and evidence already collected to perform their analyses.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Crime Scene Management Protocols: Establishes that photographing the scene is one of the initial steps in securing and documenting evidence.
Forensic Science Handbook: Emphasizes the importance of photography as the first step in processing crime scenes.
Question 364
If a suspect’s right to ‘consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private’ cannot be facilitated immediately by Police, what action is required first?
A. Arrange for their lawyer to attend at a time suiting the circumstances.
B. Advise the suspect of that fact and the reason for the delay.
C. Advise the suspect of that fact and proceed to interview.
B. Advise the suspect of that fact and the reason for the delay.
Reasoning:
Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23(1)(b)), individuals who are arrested or detained have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private. However, if the Police cannot immediately facilitate this right due to circumstances (e.g., lawyer unavailability, urgent operational demands), it is critical that:
The suspect is advised of the delay and given a clear explanation of the reason.
This ensures transparency, maintains procedural fairness, and upholds the integrity of the interview process.
Why not the other options?
Option A: Arrange for their lawyer to attend at a time suiting the circumstances
While arranging for a lawyer is a necessary step, the suspect must first be informed of the delay and its reason. Without this, the Police risk breaching the suspect’s rights, and any evidence gathered might be deemed inadmissible.
Option C: Advise the suspect of that fact and proceed to interview
Proceeding to interview without a lawyer after acknowledging the delay would likely breach the suspect’s right to legal consultation. The Police must take reasonable steps to facilitate this right before continuing the interview.
Sources:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23(1)(b): Right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private.
New Zealand Police Manual: Emphasizes the importance of informing suspects of delays and reasons to ensure compliance with legal obligations.
Relevant case law underlines that failing to inform the suspect of their rights and the reasons for delay risks procedural fairness and evidence admissibility.
Question 365
The I car is first to the scene of a serious crash incident where two people in one car are injured and trapped. The constables’ first duty is to:
A. Establish a pathway into and out of the scene.
B. Ensure the crash scene is as safe as possible.
C. Assess the injured people and give first aid.
B. Ensure the crash scene is as safe as possible.
Reasoning:
The first priority at a serious crash scene is ensuring safety for all involved, including victims, first responders, and the public. This includes securing the area, addressing immediate hazards (e.g., fire, leaking fuel, live wires), and creating a controlled environment for rescue and investigation.
Without making the scene safe:
First responders cannot perform their duties effectively.
The risk of further harm to victims, responders, or bystanders increases significantly.
Why not the other options?
Option A: Establish a pathway into and out of the scene
While important, this is a secondary task that follows after ensuring the scene is safe. Without first addressing hazards, establishing pathways could expose others to danger.
Option C: Assess the injured people and give first aid
Providing first aid is a critical responsibility but must come after making the scene safe. Approaching injured individuals without addressing hazards could jeopardize the safety of responders and delay effective medical intervention.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Crash Management Protocols: Emphasizes safety as the top priority when responding to crash incidents.
First Responder Best Practices: Highlights scene safety as the initial step in emergency response to protect both responders and victims.
Question 366
After witnessing an assault, you approach and arrest the offender. He refuses to say anything to you. Thirty minutes later, at the station, the offender states that he wishes to speak to you about the incident. When interviewed, he tells you why the assault took place. At what point during this incident should this offender have received the Rights/Caution?
A. At the time of arrest only, because once an offender is arrested, the Rights/Caution lasts for the next two hours.
B. At the time the offender was arrested for assaulting the other person and prior to any interview when he was in custody.
C. At the start of the interview while he was in custody and upon the offender eventually admitting the assault.
B. At the time the offender was arrested for assaulting the other person and prior to any interview when he was in custody.
Reasoning:
Under New Zealand law and police practice, a suspect must be informed of their rights (including the caution) as soon as practicable after being arrested or detained. This ensures the suspect is fully aware of their rights before any formal questioning or interview.
In this scenario:
The offender was arrested for assault. At the moment of arrest, it was necessary to inform him of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 23).
Informing him again before any custodial interview would also be standard practice to ensure compliance with legal obligations.
Why not the other options?
Option A: At the time of arrest only, because once an offender is arrested, the Rights/Caution lasts for the next two hours
This is incorrect. While a caution given at the time of arrest remains valid, the police must still reiterate the caution at the start of any formal interview to ensure the suspect understands their rights in the context of being questioned.
Option C: At the start of the interview while he was in custody and upon the offender eventually admitting the assault
This is partially correct in that the caution should be repeated at the start of the interview. However, it does not negate the requirement to issue the caution at the time of arrest, which ensures procedural fairness and protects against legal challenges.
Sources:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Outlines the requirement to inform arrested or detained individuals of their rights, including the right to silence.
New Zealand Police Manual on Arrests and Interviews: Recommends giving the Rights/Caution upon arrest and reiterating it before any custodial interview to protect the suspect’s rights and the admissibility of evidence.
Question 367
Johnny bashed his partner Jill with a cricket bat in their front yard. Jill is badly injured and is taken to hospital. Neighbouring witnesses tell you Johnny left in a car taking the bat with him. They say no one else is inside the house. You now have RGTS an offence punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or more has occurred and RGTB that the bat is in Johnny’s car. Should you enter the house without warrant to search for evidential material?
A. No, because neither s15 nor s14 apply in the circumstances.
B. Yes, you can enter under s14 to respond to risk to life or safety.
C. Yes, you can enter under s15 to avoid loss of evidential material (CADD).
A. No, because neither s15 nor s14 apply in the circumstances.
Reasoning:
Analysis of Section 15 (Search to Prevent Loss of Evidential Material):
Section 15 allows police to enter a place without a warrant to prevent the loss, concealment, or destruction of evidential material (CADD).
In this case, the bat is believed to be in Johnny’s car, which is no longer at the house. Since the evidence is not at the premises in question, s15 does not apply.
Analysis of Section 14 (Entry to Prevent Risk to Life or Safety):
Section 14 allows warrantless entry if there is an immediate threat to life or safety.
Here, there is no ongoing risk to life or safety at the house because no one is inside, and the victim (Jill) is already receiving medical attention. Therefore, s14 does not apply.
Relevance of RGTB and RGTS:
While RGTS and RGTB suggest an offence occurred, the focus is on Johnny’s car (where the bat is believed to be). Searching the house would not align with legal grounds under s14 or s15.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Yes, you can enter under s14 to respond to risk to life or safety:
Incorrect because there is no current risk to anyone’s life or safety inside the house.
C. Yes, you can enter under s15 to avoid loss of evidential material (CADD):
Incorrect because the bat is believed to be in Johnny’s car, not in the house. Therefore, s15 does not apply to the house.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Sections 14 and 15.
New Zealand Police Manual on warrantless searches and evidential preservation.
Question 368
Gary is upset because Bert is going out with his ex-girlfriend. Gary approaches Bert and throws a punch at his head. Bert ducks and the punch misses. Which of the following statements is true?
A. Gary commits the offence of ‘assault with intent to injure’ because the potential for serious injury to the victim was likely.
B. Gary commits ‘no offence’ because he had the mens rea to strike the victim but failed to complete the full act.
C. Gary commits the offence of ‘assault’ because an attempt to strike the victim but missing falls within the definition of assault.
C. Gary commits the offence of ‘assault’ because an attempt to strike the victim but missing falls within the definition of assault.
Reasoning:
Definition of Assault under Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961:
Assault includes both the application of force and the attempt or threat to apply force to another person when that person believes the force will be applied.
In this case, Gary’s punch is an attempt to apply force to Bert, and even though the punch missed, it still qualifies as an assault under the law.
Elements of Assault Present in this Scenario:
Actus Reus (Act): Gary throws a punch at Bert, which is an overt act attempting to apply force.
Mens Rea (Intent): Gary intentionally threw the punch with the aim of striking Bert, fulfilling the mental intent required for assault.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Gary commits the offence of ‘assault with intent to injure’ because the potential for serious injury to the victim was likely:
Incorrect. Although Gary threw a punch, there is no evidence of intent to cause serious injury. For “assault with intent to injure,” intent to cause harm beyond just an act of assault must be established.
B. Gary commits ‘no offence’ because he had the mens rea to strike the victim but failed to complete the full act:
Incorrect. Assault does not require physical contact to be completed. An attempt to apply force or a credible threat is sufficient for the offence of assault.
Source:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 2: Definition of Assault.
New Zealand Police Manual on definitions and elements of assault.
Question 369
Which example is incorrect? A written statement from a witness interview:
A. Must record the witness’ narrative of events in the chronological order they occurred.
B. Should ideally be recorded on Police investigative interviewing form II.
C. Cannot include slang, swearing, or colloquialisms as it is a legal document.
C. Cannot include slang, swearing, or colloquialisms as it is a legal document.
Reasoning:
Use of Slang, Swearing, or Colloquialisms:
A written witness statement should reflect the witness’s own words as accurately as possible. This includes the use of slang, swearing, or colloquialisms. Excluding these might distort the witness’s narrative and affect the credibility of the statement.
Witness statements are not formal legal documents but rather an account of events given by the witness, which must be recorded verbatim for authenticity.
Why the Other Options Are Correct:
A. Must record the witness’ narrative of events in the chronological order they occurred:
Correct. Chronological order ensures the statement presents a clear and logical account of the events, aiding in the investigation and legal proceedings.
B. Should ideally be recorded on Police investigative interviewing form II:
Correct. Police investigative forms are designed to structure the witness’s narrative and include the necessary information to support the investigation.
Why C is Incorrect:
While the statement must be respectful and professional in its presentation, the inclusion of slang or colloquial language ensures it remains an accurate reflection of the witness’s words. Removing or altering such language could undermine the authenticity of the evidence.
Source:
New Zealand Police Manual on Investigative Interviewing.
Guidelines for Recording Witness Statements: Emphasis on verbatim recording for accuracy.
Question 370
The purpose of a victim impact statement is to:
A. Allow the court to hear and consider the victim’s views on sentencing.
B. Record the victim’s own words about what happened.
C. Allow the court to consider the effects of the crime on the victim.
C. Allow the court to consider the effects of the crime on the victim.
Reasoning:
The Role of a Victim Impact Statement:
The primary purpose of a victim impact statement is to provide the court with insight into how the crime has affected the victim emotionally, physically, financially, or socially. This information assists the court in making informed decisions about sentencing.
It allows the victim’s experiences to be part of the judicial process without influencing the determination of guilt.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Allow the court to hear and consider the victim’s views on sentencing:
Incorrect. While the statement provides the court with information about the impact of the crime, it is not specifically intended to express the victim’s views on sentencing. Sentencing decisions are guided by legislation and judicial discretion.
B. Record the victim’s own words about what happened:
Incorrect. A victim impact statement is not a factual account of the crime but rather a statement about the consequences of the crime for the victim. The crime’s facts are addressed separately in evidence.
Why C is Correct:
The statement’s purpose is to highlight the consequences of the crime on the victim’s life. This information provides the court with a fuller understanding of the harm caused and helps ensure justice is served.
Source:
New Zealand Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Section 17: Victim Impact Statements.
Court Sentencing Guidelines: Emphasis on considering victim impact during sentencing decisions.
Question 371
When deciding on the admissibility of a youth’s interview, an overriding principle that will guide the judge is:
A. Whether the youth was fully informed of their rights according to s215 of CYP and their Families Act 1989.
B. That the interview was conducted in compliance with the terms of the Chief Justice Practice Note.
C. Whether the interview was fairly conducted in acceptance of the CYP’s vulnerability, which entitles them to special protection.
Ji
A. Whether the youth was fully informed of their rights according to s215 of CYP and their Families Act 1989.
Chat GPT
C. Whether the interview was fairly conducted in acceptance of the CYP’s vulnerability, which entitles them to special protection.
Reasoning:
The Importance of Vulnerability:
The overriding principle in deciding the admissibility of a youth’s interview is ensuring the interview was conducted fairly while taking into account the youth’s vulnerability. Young people are entitled to special protections because they may not fully understand their rights or the implications of their statements during an interview.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Whether the youth was fully informed of their rights according to s215 of CYP and their Families Act 1989:
While this is an important consideration, simply informing the youth of their rights does not guarantee fairness in the interview process. The judge will consider the broader context of how the interview was conducted, including whether the youth’s vulnerability was properly accounted for.
B. That the interview was conducted in compliance with the terms of the Chief Justice Practice Note:
Compliance with the Practice Note is a key procedural requirement but does not override the principle of ensuring fairness and protection for the youth. The judge’s primary concern is whether the interview process upheld the youth’s rights and acknowledged their vulnerability.
Why C is Correct:
The primary guiding principle is fairness and protection. Judges must assess whether the interview process was conducted in a way that respects the youth’s special status under the law. This includes ensuring they understood their rights and were not pressured, intimidated, or misled during the process.
Sources:
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, Section 215: Governs informing youth of their rights.
Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning: Stresses fairness, particularly for vulnerable individuals.
Case Law: Emphasizes the importance of considering a youth’s vulnerability when determining the admissibility of their interview statements.
Question 372
Who is responsible for ensuring a victim of a section 29 offence is given the POL 1065 and sufficient information and assistance to complete it?
A. Responsibility rests with Victim Support / Women’s Refuge who are trained to assist s29 victims.
B. Responsibility rests with the O/C case who arrests and charges the offender with the s29 offence.
C. Responsibility rests with Police Prosecutions staff who audit the file contents before court.
B. Responsibility rests with the O/C case who arrests and charges the offender with the s29 offence.
Reasoning:
Responsibility of the Officer in Charge (O/C):
The Officer in Charge (O/C) of the case is directly responsible for ensuring the victim of a section 29 offence is provided with the POL 1065 form (Victim Notification Form). This responsibility includes giving the victim sufficient information and assistance to complete the form. It is part of the O/C’s role in victim management and case progression.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Responsibility rests with Victim Support / Women’s Refuge who are trained to assist s29 victims:
While these organizations play a vital role in providing emotional and practical support to victims, they are not responsible for ensuring the POL 1065 form is provided or completed. This responsibility lies solely with the Police.
C. Responsibility rests with Police Prosecutions staff who audit the file contents before court:
Police Prosecutions staff ensure case files are complete before presenting them in court. However, they are not responsible for directly interacting with the victim to provide or assist with the POL 1065 form. Their role is more administrative and procedural in nature.
Why B is Correct:
The O/C case has the primary role in victim care and is responsible for ensuring the victim is informed of their rights, including the Victim Notification Register process. This aligns with the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 requirements and Police procedures.
Sources:
Victims’ Rights Act 2002: Emphasizes the Police’s obligation to provide victims with necessary information and assistance.
New Zealand Police Manual: Outlines the responsibilities of the O/C case in managing victim care and ensuring compliance with victim notification procedures.
Question 373
Gary (16 years) is to be interviewed about his part in a serious assault, and he is insisting his uncle be his nominated person. On preparing for the interview, you note that his uncle is also identified as a witness at the scene. In these circumstances, you should:
A. Explain to Gary that his uncle is not suitable as his nominated person and he should select another.
B. Conduct the witness interview to determine if the uncle is suitable for the role of nominated person.
C. Proceed to interview Gary with his uncle as nominated person as Gary is insistent and won’t nominate another.
Ji
B. Conduct the witness interview to determine if the uncle is suitable for the role of nominated person
Chat GPT
A. Explain to Gary that his uncle is not suitable as his nominated person and he should select another.
Reasoning:
Conflict of Interest:
A nominated person must not have any involvement in the events being investigated that would create a conflict of interest. In this case, Gary’s uncle is identified as a witness at the scene of the serious assault, which disqualifies him as a suitable nominated person under Police policy and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. Allowing the uncle to act in this role could undermine the integrity of the investigation and create a perception of bias.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
B. Conduct the witness interview to determine if the uncle is suitable for the role of nominated person:
While interviewing the uncle as a witness is necessary for the case, it does not resolve the conflict of interest that arises from his direct involvement in the events. His position as a witness makes him unsuitable to act as Gary’s nominated person regardless of the interview outcome.
C. Proceed to interview Gary with his uncle as nominated person as Gary is insistent and won’t nominate another:
Allowing the uncle to act as the nominated person despite his involvement as a witness would violate Police policies and could result in the interview being ruled inadmissible due to unfairness or a breach of Gary’s rights.
Why A is Correct:
Police must ensure the nominated person is impartial and free of any conflicts that may compromise the fairness of the interview process. If Gary’s first choice is unsuitable, he must be guided to select an alternative person. This aligns with section 222 of the CYPF Act 1989, which specifies that a nominated person must act in the best interests of the young person and ensure fairness during the process.
Sources:
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989: Requirements for nominated persons and their role in youth interviews.
New Zealand Police Manual: Emphasizes the importance of selecting a suitable and impartial nominated person to uphold the fairness and admissibility of youth interviews.
Question 374
Constables Jenkins and Tuigamala respond to a P1 home invasion where the victim says the offender has entered and exited through the door into the backyard and absconded over the fence into a neighbouring property. To protect the collection of forensic evidence they cordon the scene and establish a common entry pathway via:
A. Double glass doors to the deck at the rear of the house.
B. A small gateway opening to the next-door property.
C. The front door through which the constables entered.
C. The front door through which the constables entered.
Reasoning:
Common Entry Pathway:
A common entry pathway is established to preserve the integrity of the crime scene and minimize the risk of contamination or destruction of forensic evidence. The path used by first responders, in this case, the front door, is typically designated as the common pathway since it has already been compromised and minimizes the risk of introducing additional contamination.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Double glass doors to the deck at the rear of the house:
Using a new entry point, such as the glass doors to the backyard, could introduce new contamination and disturb potential forensic evidence located in that area.
B. A small gateway opening to the next-door property:
The offender’s escape route (over the fence and through the gateway) could hold critical forensic evidence, such as footprints, fingerprints, or fibers. Using this as the common entry pathway would risk destroying or contaminating that evidence.
Why C is Correct:
The front door, already used by the constables, is the logical choice for the common entry pathway. This ensures that no new areas of the scene are compromised and preserves the integrity of potential evidence at other locations, such as the backyard or escape route.
Sources:
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidance on preserving crime scene integrity and establishing common pathways.
Forensic Best Practices: Emphasis on minimizing contamination by limiting access to already-compromised pathways.
Criminal Investigations Procedures: Importance of preserving escape routes and potential evidence at all costs.
Question 375
You have entered a house under s8. You may search in:
A. The kitchen drawers.
B. The china cabinet.
C. The basement workshop.
C. The basement workshop.
Reasoning:
Scope of Search Under s8 (Search Incident to Arrest):
Section 8 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 allows Police to search places for evidential material relating to the offence for which the person has been arrested. The search must be limited to areas where evidential material could reasonably be found.
Why C is Correct:
The basement workshop:
A basement workshop is a plausible location for hiding or storing items related to a crime, depending on the offence. For example, tools, weapons, or stolen goods could reasonably be kept there, making it a valid area to search under s8.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. The kitchen drawers:
Kitchen drawers would not be a logical place to search unless there is a specific reason to believe evidential material related to the offence could be there (e.g., stolen silverware in a theft case). Without specific grounds, this area might be deemed excessive or irrelevant.
B. The china cabinet:
Unless the offence or circumstances specifically suggest that evidential material (e.g., stolen valuable items) might be stored in a china cabinet, searching this area could be considered unreasonable and outside the scope of s8.
Principle of Reasonableness:
The search must be conducted in a manner that is reasonable and proportionate, targeting areas where evidential material is likely to be located. Searching irrelevant areas risks breaching legal boundaries.
Sources:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: Section 8 (Searches incident to arrest).
New Zealand Police Manual: Guidelines on lawful and reasonable searches.
Judicial Precedents: Emphasis on maintaining proportionality and targeting likely locations for evidential material.
Question 376
After arguing with a dairy owner, a man storms out of the dairy. A short time later, the dairy owner hears a loud bang and sees a large crack in the shop window. The man is standing across the road. On arrival, you interview the man. After a few questions, he says, “It was his fault because he was smart to me.” You continue with the interview until the man is arrested for breaking the window. When should this suspect have first received the Rights/Caution?
A. At the time the suspect was informed that they would now be arrested for the offence of Intentional Damage.
B. At the end of the interview and prior to the suspect being arrested for the offence of Intentional Damage.
C. When the suspect stated to you that it was the dairy owner’s fault that the window had been broken.
Answer: C. When the suspect stated to you that it was the dairy owner’s fault that the window had been broken.
Reasoning:
The suspect should be cautioned when their statements move from being general remarks to self-incriminating admissions that directly relate to the offence being investigated. In this case, when the suspect stated, “It was his fault because he was smart to me,” this is a self-incriminating statement acknowledging involvement in the damage to the shop window. At this point, the officer should have administered the Rights/Caution under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. At the time the suspect was informed that they would now be arrested for the offence of Intentional Damage:
This option is incorrect because the caution should have been given earlier when the suspect made an incriminating statement, not just at the time of arrest.
B. At the end of the interview and prior to the suspect being arrested for the offence of Intentional Damage:
This is incorrect because delaying the caution until the end of the interview would fail to protect the suspect’s right against self-incrimination during questioning, which is a key principle.
Sources Used:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23(1)(b): Right to be informed of the right to remain silent.
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Outlines that the caution must be given when a suspect makes a statement that implicates them in an offence.
Question 377
Duty of care requires you to protect the arrested or detained person:
A. From the time the person is placed in the police car until you take them into the watchhouse and complete the necessary paperwork.
B. From the time of arrest or detention, throughout the interview, and up to the time it takes to get the person locked up and charged.
C. From the time you arrest or detain the person until you transfer them into someone else’s custody and your transfer is acknowledged.
Answer: C. From the time you arrest or detain the person until you transfer them into someone else’s custody and your transfer is acknowledged.
Reasoning:
The duty of care for an arrested or detained person starts from the moment they are arrested or detained and continues until they are formally transferred into another authority’s custody (e.g., the watchhouse staff). The officer must ensure the person’s safety, welfare, and rights during this entire period, including providing medical assistance if required, ensuring they are treated humanely, and protecting them from harm.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. From the time the person is placed in the police car until you take them into the watchhouse and complete the necessary paperwork:
This is incorrect because the duty of care extends beyond this timeframe. The officer is responsible for the individual from the moment of arrest until a formal handover to another authority is completed.
B. From the time of arrest or detention, throughout the interview, and up to the time it takes to get the person locked up and charged:
This is incorrect because the duty of care is not limited to these specific phases. It includes the entire period of custody until the formal transfer is completed and acknowledged.
Sources Used:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Rights of persons arrested or detained.
Police Custody Management Standards: Guidelines for ensuring the safety and welfare of detained persons during all stages of custody.
Question 378
The case R v Weaver (1956) defined the term ‘cross-examination’ as it applies to interviewing suspects. How was cross-examination defined in that case?
A. Questions put to a person for the purpose of testing statements that they have already made to confuse or to trip them up.
B. Repetitious questions on the same fact are put for the purpose of whittling down or gaining different answers to those already given.
C. Questions put to a suspect to either whittle down or differentiate answers already given because their answers are not accepted.
Answer: C. Questions put to a suspect to either whittle down or differentiate answers already given because their answers are not accepted.
Reasoning:
The case R v Weaver (1956) clarified the term “cross-examination” in the context of interviewing suspects. Cross-examination involves questioning a person in a way that aims to challenge, refine, or differentiate their previous statements, particularly when their answers are not accepted by the questioner. This type of questioning often puts the suspect under pressure to clarify inconsistencies or contradictions.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Questions put to a person for the purpose of testing statements that they have already made to confuse or to trip them up:
This does not accurately describe the intent of cross-examination. While challenging statements is part of the process, the purpose of cross-examination is not to confuse or mislead but to test the truth and reliability of a person’s account.
B. Repetitious questions on the same fact are put for the purpose of whittling down or gaining different answers to those already given:
This is incorrect because cross-examination is broader than just repeating questions. It aims to test the credibility of statements, not solely to gain different responses.
Sources Used:
R v Weaver (1956) case law principles.
New Zealand Police Investigative Interviewing Manual: Definitions and guidelines for proper questioning techniques.
Question 379
In relation to some MODA 1975 offences, s20 allows you to search which of the following:
A. Any vehicle and place.
B. Any vehicle and people therein.
C. Any place and people therein.
Answer: A. Any vehicle and place.
Reasoning:
Under section 20 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MODA), law enforcement is granted powers to search any vehicle and place if there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence related to controlled drugs. The provision does not extend explicitly to include searching people therein unless a separate provision (such as section 21 or section 22 for searching persons) applies.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Any vehicle and people therein:
Section 20 does not specifically authorize searching people within a vehicle. Searching individuals requires additional authority under another section, such as s21 or s22 of MODA or other applicable laws.
C. Any place and people therein:
Similarly, the search of people present in a place requires specific powers under separate provisions, such as section 18 or other parts of MODA.
Sources Used:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (Sections 20, 21, 22).
New Zealand Police guidelines on MODA enforcement.
Question 380
Steve and Keith are walking down the road together. Steve is wearing an All Whites football jersey. Henry wants the football jersey, so he walks up to Keith, punches him in the face, and yells at him to tell Steve to give up his jersey or he will punch him again. Steve, fearing that Keith might be hurt, takes off his jersey and gives it to Henry. What offence has Henry committed?
A. Robbery, as Henry has used violence and stolen property
Question 381
You are in the carpark at the shopping mall when you hear a woman crying out that her handbag has been snatched. She tells you the offender ran off and got into the back of a van. You quickly locate and stop the van. In these circumstances, you would use s8 to enter the van to:
A. Search the van.
B. Seize the handbag.
C. Arrest the offender.
Answer: C. Arrest the offender.
Reasoning:
Under section 8 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, police officers may enter a place or vehicle without a warrant for the purpose of making an arrest. In this scenario, you have reasonable grounds to believe the offender is inside the van based on the victim’s statement and the circumstances of the handbag snatching. Entering the van under s8 is appropriate to arrest the offender.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Search the van:
While you may search the van, this action would require powers under another section, such as s16 for a warrantless search for evidential material. Section 8 specifically allows entry for the purpose of making an arrest, not for conducting a search.
B. Seize the handbag:
Seizing the handbag would fall under evidential material powers (such as s123 or s16 of the Search and Surveillance Act), but section 8 is not directly concerned with seizing items. Its primary purpose is to facilitate entry to arrest the offender.
Sources Used:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (Section 8 – Warrantless entry to arrest).
New Zealand Police operational guidelines for warrantless searches and arrests.
Question 382
Evidential material, in relation to a particular offence, means evidence of the offence or any other item, tangible or intangible, of relevance to the investigation of the offence. A tangible item that could be evidential material is:
A. Image library in cellphone.
B. Online banking records.
C. A locked iPhone.
Answer: C. A locked iPhone.
Reasoning:
Evidential material is defined under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 as any item (tangible or intangible) of relevance to an investigation. A locked iPhone is a tangible item that could hold evidential material, such as messages, call logs, or images relevant to the offence being investigated. The phone itself is a physical object and can be seized as potential evidential material for later analysis.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Image library in cellphone:
While the image library may contain relevant evidence, it is intangible (digital data) and resides within the physical item (the phone). The phone itself, as a tangible item, must first be seized to access the data.
B. Online banking records:
Online banking records are intangible evidence stored on external servers, not a tangible item that can be seized directly. Access to such records usually requires specific legal processes (e.g., production orders).
Sources Used:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (Definition of “evidential material”).
New Zealand Police operational guidelines on evidential material.
Question 383
While on patrol, you see a man waiting at a taxi rank who matches COMMS description of one of two men who robbed a shop assistant one hour ago. The men are reported to have stolen two iPhones. Which power of search is most appropriate in the circumstances?
A. s16 Warrantless search of a person for evidential material relating to certain offences.
B. s88 Warrantless search of arrested or detained person for evidential material.
C. s27 Warrantless search of a person in a public place for an offensive weapon.
Answer: A. s16 Warrantless search of a person for evidential material relating to certain offences.
Reasoning:
Section 16 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 provides the power to conduct a warrantless search of a person if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they possess evidential material relating to certain offences punishable by 14 years or more in prison or specified drug offences. Since the man matches the description of a robbery suspect (an offence carrying a sentence exceeding 14 years) and the stolen iPhones are evidential material, s16 is the most appropriate power to use in this situation.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. s88 Warrantless search of arrested or detained person for evidential material:
This section only applies after the person has been arrested or detained. In this case, the man is only a suspect, and no arrest or detention has been made yet.
C. s27 Warrantless search of a person in a public place for an offensive weapon:
Section 27 is specific to offensive weapons or disabling substances and is not relevant here since the search is for stolen iPhones (evidential material), not weapons.
Sources Used:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012: s16, s88, s27.
Operational guidance from New Zealand Police on warrantless searches.
Question 384
Joe and Steve break into a vehicle parked up a residential driveway. They rip the GPS system from the dashboard and take a mountain bike from the boot of the vehicle. As they run down the driveway they are confronted by the owner who attempts to stop them getting away. Steve punches the homeowner in the face causing him to fall to the ground and Joe and Steve run away. What is the most appropriate assault offence?
A. common assault (section 9 Summary Offences Act 1981)
B? aggravated assault (section 192 Crimes Act 1961)
C. injuring with intent (section 189 Crimes Act 1961)
Answer: B. Aggravated assault (section 192 Crimes Act 1961)
Reasoning:
The scenario involves an assault committed while Joe and Steve are engaged in a criminal act (theft from a vehicle). Section 192 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines aggravated assault as an assault committed with intent to facilitate the commission of an offence or the escape of an offender immediately after committing an offence.
In this case:
Steve punches the homeowner to prevent him from stopping their escape, making it an aggravated assault.
The assault is directly tied to their criminal act (theft of the GPS and mountain bike).
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Common assault (section 9 Summary Offences Act 1981):
Common assault refers to an assault without significant aggravating factors. Here, the assault is tied to the commission of another offence (theft) and is therefore more serious than common assault.
C. Injuring with intent (section 189 Crimes Act 1961):
This offence requires intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to cause injury. While the homeowner is punched and falls, the injury does not meet the threshold for “injuring with intent” as there is no evidence of intent to inflict significant injury.
Sources Used:
Crimes Act 1961, sections 189 and 192.
Summary Offences Act 1981, section 9.
Guidance on distinguishing levels of assault in New Zealand law.
Question 385
Are pre-trial admissibility hearings available before both Judge-alone and jury trials?
A. Yes
B. Pre-trial hearings are only for jury trials
C. No
No - Only for JAT
Question 386
A child or young person (CYP) can nominate an adult to provide support when they are being interviewed by Police. Which of the following statements best describes the person considered to be the most appropriate for the role?
A. An educational or welfare representative
B. An adult member of their family or whanau
C. Any mature and empathetic person
Answer: B. An adult member of their family or whanau
Reasoning:
The most appropriate person to support a child or young person (CYP) during a police interview is typically an adult member of their family or whanau. This is because they are more likely to have a close relationship with the CYP, understand their needs, and provide emotional support in a stressful situation.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. An educational or welfare representative: While such individuals may have a role in other settings, they are not necessarily the most appropriate for police interviews, as they may not have the personal connection that a family or whanau member has.
C. Any mature and empathetic person: Although maturity and empathy are important, it does not necessarily make someone the most suitable choice unless they have a personal connection or are familiar with the CYP’s background and needs.
Sources Used:
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act).
New Zealand Police guidelines for interviewing children and young persons.
Question 387
Brad goes up to Kevin and threatens him with “a hiding” if the sunglasses Kevin is wearing are not handed over to him immediately.
Kevin refuses to comply and Brad punches him in the head.
The sunglasses break. Brad, no longer interested in glasses, walks away empty-handed.
A. Attempted robbery
B. Robbery
C. Assault with intent to rob
Ji
B. Robbery
Chat GPT
Answer: C. Assault with intent to rob
Reasoning:
Brad’s actions clearly demonstrate an intent to commit robbery, as he uses both a threat (“a hiding”) and physical violence (punching Kevin in the head) to try to take the sunglasses. However, since Brad walks away without taking anything after breaking the sunglasses, it falls short of a completed robbery. The charge of assault with intent to rob is appropriate because the violence was used with the intention of committing robbery, even though the robbery itself did not occur.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Attempted robbery: This charge is incorrect because Brad did not make any physical attempt to actually take the sunglasses after punching Kevin. His actions were focused on using threats and violence, which align more closely with assault with intent to rob.
B. Robbery: Robbery requires both violence (or threats of violence) and the successful taking of property. Since Brad left empty-handed and did not actually steal the sunglasses, the elements of robbery are not fully met.
Sources Used:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 236 (Assault with intent to rob).
Legal guidelines on elements required to establish robbery versus attempted robbery or related offences.
Question 388
You may search a person without a warrant for a controlled drug if you have:
A. RGTS an offence has occurred and RGTB they are in possession of a controlled drug.
B. RGTB an offence has occurred and RGTB they are in possession of a controlled drug.
C. RGTS an offence has occurred and RGTS they are in possession of a controlled drug.
Ji
C. RGTS an offence has occurred and RGTS they are in possession of a controlled drug.
Chat GPT
Answer: A. RGTS an offence has occurred and RGTB they are in possession of a controlled drug.
Explanation:
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MODA) 1975, the power to search a person without a warrant requires that the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect (RGTS) that an offence involving controlled drugs has occurred and reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) that the person is in possession of controlled drugs. This combination of RGTS and RGTB ensures that the search is justified and lawful.
Why Not the Other Options?
B: Both RGTS and RGTB are required, but this option incorrectly states “RGTB an offence has occurred,” which is incorrect terminology.
C: Having RGTS for both the offence and possession is not sufficient for a warrantless search; RGTB for possession is necessary to meet the legal threshold.
Source:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Section 18(2): Provides the legal framework for warrantless searches in relation to controlled drugs.
Question 389
If you are stopping a vehicle without a warrant for the purposes of a search under Section 121 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you have certain obligations. At the request of any person affected by the stop, which of the following answers is the most appropriate course of action to take?
A. Identify yourself by name or QID, state the Act and Section under which the search is taking place, and the reason for the search unless it is impracticable in the circumstances, and produce evidence of ID if you are not in uniform.
B. Identify yourself by name or QID, state the Act under which the search is taking place and the reason for the search unless it is impracticable in the circumstances, and produce evidence of ID if you are not in uniform.
C. Identify yourself by name or QID, state the Act and Section under which the search is taking place, and produce evidence of ID if not in police uniform.
Ji
B. Identify yourself by name or QID, state the Act under which the search is taking place and the reason for the search unless it is impracticable in the circumstances, and produce evidence of ID if you are not in uniform.
Chat GPT
Answer: A. Identify yourself by name or QID, state the Act and Section under which the search is taking place, and the reason for the search unless it is impracticable in the circumstances, and produce evidence of ID if you are not in uniform.
Explanation:
Under Section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, when conducting a warrantless search, officers have specific obligations to provide transparency and accountability. The officer must:
Identify themselves by name or unique identifier (QID).
State the Act and Section authorizing the search.
Explain the reason for the search (unless impracticable in the circumstances).
Produce evidence of identity if not in uniform.
This ensures the person being searched is aware of the officer’s authority and the reason for the search.
Why Not the Other Options?
B: While this option mentions identification and the Act, it omits the requirement to state the specific Section under which the search is taking place.
C: This option fails to mention the requirement to explain the reason for the search, which is a critical obligation unless impracticable.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 131: Outlines the requirements for officers conducting warrantless searches, including the obligations to provide information and identify themselves.
Question 390
A special consideration witness is one who:
A. Is affected by the nature of the offence or has personal characteristics affecting their ability to communicate easily.
B. Is more likely to give a statement that will be difficult to corroborate, thereby creating more work for the investigator.
C. Is unable to remember details of the offence they witnessed due to the time that has lapsed before the interview.
Answer: A. Is affected by the nature of the offence or has personal characteristics affecting their ability to communicate easily.
Explanation:
A special consideration witness is defined as someone who requires additional support during interviews or the legal process due to the nature of the offence they were involved in or their individual characteristics. These may include:
Age (e.g., children or elderly individuals).
Cognitive, physical, or psychological impairments.
Trauma due to the offence committed against them.
The goal is to ensure fairness and effective communication while considering the witness’s specific needs.
Why Not the Other Options?
B: Difficulty in corroborating a statement does not define a special consideration witness. This is more about evidentiary challenges rather than the witness’s characteristics.
C: Memory lapse due to time is not a criterion for categorizing someone as a special consideration witness. Instead, it could impact the reliability of their testimony.
Source:
New Zealand Police Victim and Witness Guidelines: Emphasizes the importance of identifying and providing tailored support to special consideration witnesses to ensure their rights and needs are addressed.
Question 391
After issuing a summons, you then decide not to commence a prosecution. What must you do next?
A. File a Charging Document as you must always commence a prosecution after serving a summons.
B. No action required. The Prosecutor will advise the defendant when he/she appears at Court.
C. Take all reasonable steps to advise the defendant that there will be no prosecution prior to the date summonsed.
Answer: C. Take all reasonable steps to advise the defendant that there will be no prosecution prior to the date summonsed.
Explanation:
When a decision is made not to proceed with a prosecution after a summons has been issued, it is the responsibility of the police to inform the defendant. This ensures that the individual is not left in uncertainty and avoids unnecessary court appearances.
Why Not the Other Options?
A: Filing a Charging Document is unnecessary if the decision is made not to proceed with the prosecution. The summons can be withdrawn before it leads to formal proceedings.
B: Leaving the matter for the Prosecutor to address in court is not appropriate. The responsibility lies with the police to inform the defendant in advance, ensuring proper communication and preventing wasted time for all parties.
Source:
New Zealand Police Prosecution Guidelines: Highlights the importance of timely communication with defendants regarding changes to their summons or prosecution status.
Question 392
Under Section 7 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you can enter a place or vehicle without a warrant to search and arrest a person who is unlawfully at large. Which of the following situations would not be categorised as “unlawfully at large”?
A. A restricted patient who has failed to return to hospital after a day leave.
B. A person with an outstanding fines warrant.
C. An escaped prisoner from a Department of Corrections prison.
B. A person with an outstanding fines warrant.
Explanation:
Under Section 7 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, a person is considered “unlawfully at large” if they have escaped custody, failed to return from temporary release, or absconded from lawful detention. A person with an outstanding fines warrant does not fall into this category, as a fines warrant is not related to being in custody or escaping detention.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. A restricted patient who has failed to return to hospital after a day leave:
This qualifies as “unlawfully at large” because the individual has failed to return to lawful detention under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act.
C. An escaped prisoner from a Department of Corrections prison:
This is a clear example of someone “unlawfully at large” because the individual has escaped from lawful custody.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 7
Legal definitions of “unlawfully at large” related to escape from custody or failure to return from detention.
Question 393
During a fight at a very crowded local bar, Steve grabs a pool cue and starts swinging it around. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone but gets carried away and hits a bar patron around the head. The injuries to the bar patron consist of a fractured eye socket and fractured skull. The most appropriate way to describe Steve’s actions in the bar is that he:
A. Acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
B. Acted with the intent to injure any person.
C. Acted with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any person.
Answer: A. Acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Explanation:
Steve’s actions demonstrate reckless disregard because, while he did not intend to hurt anyone, he swung the pool cue in a crowded bar and caused significant injuries. The lack of intent to cause harm aligns with the legal definition of acting recklessly—engaging in actions that are likely to endanger others without direct intent to harm.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Acted with the intent to injure any person:
There is no evidence that Steve intended to injure anyone. His actions were careless and reckless, not purposeful.
C. Acted with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any person:
Steve did not have the intent to cause serious harm, which would involve a deliberate effort to inflict significant injury. His actions were unintentional but reckless.
Source:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 189: Differentiates between intentional harm and reckless actions causing injury.
Question 394
Which of the following people may not act as nominated persons, even if the young person specifically requests them?
A. A person you believe on reasonable grounds would attempt to pervert the court of justice if permitted to consult with the young person.
B. A person you believe on reasonable grounds is a witness or has some knowledge of the matter being investigated.
C. A patched gang member with previous convictions who is a member of the youth’s whanau or their guardian.
A. A person you believe on reasonable grounds would attempt to pervert the court of justice if permitted to consult with the young person.
Question 395
On speaking with a youth apprehended at the scene of an attempted robbery, you note he has very poor English. On requesting his name and address and beginning to caution him, you note he does not seem to understand you. In the circumstances, what action is most appropriate?
A. Take him to the station and get an interpreter to give him the rights caution.
B. Arrest him because his lack of communication can be regarded as a refusal to comply.
C. Give him the rights caution with reasonable diligence to gain his understanding.
C. Give him the rights caution with reasonable diligence to gain his understanding.
Question 396
Last week you were called to a large department store where security advises they have CCTV evidence of a female (18 years) shoplifting clothing. On further investigation, you find the young woman has an extensive youth file which includes numerous incidents of dishonesty and theft. Which one of the following public interest factors most supports prosecution in this case?
A. The likelihood of the offence being repeated.
B. The circumstances of the defendant.
C. The seriousness of the offence.
Answer: A. The likelihood of the offence being repeated.
Explanation:
In this scenario, the young woman has a history of repeated offending, including numerous incidents of dishonesty and theft. The likelihood of the offence being repeated is a significant public interest factor supporting prosecution, as it indicates a pattern of behavior that may continue if not addressed. Prosecution can serve as a deterrent and encourage accountability.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. The circumstances of the defendant:
While the circumstances of the defendant (such as age or background) may be considered, they do not outweigh the need to address the likelihood of reoffending, particularly when the individual has a history of similar behaviour.
C. The seriousness of the offence:
Shoplifting is not considered a serious offence compared to others, such as violent crimes. While it is still a criminal act, the repeat nature of the behaviour takes precedence over its inherent seriousness in this context.
Source:
Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines: Public interest factors, including the likelihood of reoffending.
Police Manual: Considerations for prosecution decisions, including patterns of behavior and deterrent value.
Question 397
Harry and Ben argue on the street outside a local bar. Harry grabs a glass bottle from the rubbish bin, shouts “I hope this hurts,” and swings the bottle at Ben’s head. Ben ducks and the bottle shatters against the bar wall. The most appropriate charge in relation to Harry’s actions is:
A. ‘Common assault’ because Harry did not succeed in hitting Ben with the bottle.
B. ‘Assault with intent to injure’ because Harry was reckless as to whether or not the bottle hit Ben.
C. ‘Assault with intent to injure’ because Harry intended to injure Ben with the bottle.
Answer: C. ‘Assault with intent to injure’ because Harry intended to injure Ben with the bottle.
Explanation:
In this scenario, Harry’s actions demonstrate a clear intent to injure Ben. By shouting, “I hope this hurts,” and swinging the bottle at Ben’s head, Harry’s intent to cause harm is explicit. Although the bottle missed Ben and hit the wall instead, the intention behind Harry’s actions is sufficient to warrant the charge of ‘assault with intent to injure’ under the Crimes Act 1961.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. ‘Common assault’ because Harry did not succeed in hitting Ben with the bottle:
Common assault involves the application or attempted application of force without significant intent to cause harm. In this case, Harry’s specific intent to injure Ben goes beyond common assault.
B. ‘Assault with intent to injure’ because Harry was reckless as to whether or not the bottle hit Ben:
While recklessness can be a factor, Harry’s verbal statement and deliberate action of swinging the bottle at Ben’s head indicate intent rather than recklessness. The intent is the defining element here.
Source:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 193: Assault with intent to injure.
Legal guidance on the role of intent in assault-related offences.
Question 398
A youth suspect (14 years) is asked who he wishes to have as his nominated person at the interview. His parents are divorced and, although he lives locally with his mother, he nominates his father, who lives out of the district. Which of the following actions is most appropriate in the given circumstances?
A. Advise the father of the circumstances and make enquiries about his availability.
B. Advise the mother of the circumstances and request she be the nominated person.
C. Ask the youth to nominate another adult as the request cannot be reasonably met.
Answer: A. Advise the father of the circumstances and make enquiries about his availability.
Explanation:
The youth’s choice of a nominated person should be respected whenever reasonable and practicable, as per the principles of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. Since the youth has expressed a preference for their father, it is essential to contact the father to determine his availability. If the father is not available within a reasonable timeframe, only then should alternative arrangements be made.
Why Not the Other Options?
B: Advising the mother and requesting her to act as the nominated person without first considering the youth’s request is inappropriate. The youth has the right to choose their nominated person, and their preference should only be overridden when absolutely necessary.
C: Asking the youth to nominate another adult prematurely dismisses their request without exploring the possibility of fulfilling it.
Source:
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 – Guidelines on youth rights and the role of nominated persons.
Question 399
Simon is walking down the street texting his girlfriend. He is approached by John, who demands Simon hand over his phone. Simon refuses, and John punches him in the face. Simon gives John the phone as a result. John then realises the phone is not the model he’s after and gives it back to Simon. What offence has John committed?
A. Robbery.
B. Both Theft and Common Assault.
C. Common Assault.
Answer: A. Robbery.
Explanation:
Robbery is defined under section 234 of the Crimes Act 1961 as theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence. In this case:
John used violence (punching Simon) to obtain the phone, satisfying the element of “theft with violence.”
The fact that John returned the phone does not negate the offence, as the act of robbery was completed once he used force to obtain the phone.
Why Not the Other Options?
B: Theft and common assault are separate offences and do not fully capture the combined elements of robbery, which involves violence used to commit theft.
C: Common assault does not apply because the violence was directly used to facilitate theft, making it a robbery rather than a standalone assault.
Source:
Crimes Act 1961, Section 234 – Definition of robbery.
Question 400
Which type of search requires you to complete a warrantless power notification?
A. s11 custody search of a locked-up person.
B. s85 rub-down search of an arrested or detained person.
C. s7 entry and search for a person unlawfully at large.
Answer: C. s7 entry and search for a person unlawfully at large.
Explanation:
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012:
s7 entry and search for a person unlawfully at large: This type of search requires the use of a warrantless power and thus necessitates completing a warrantless power notification to ensure proper accountability and record-keeping.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. s11 custody search of a locked-up person: This type of search is procedural for safety and does not require a warrantless power notification, as it is standard practice when a person is taken into custody.
B. s85 rub-down search of an arrested or detained person: This search is conducted under the immediate authority to ensure safety and compliance, but it does not fall under the requirement for a warrantless power notification.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 – Specific provisions and guidelines for warrantless powers and the required notifications.
Question 401
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 requires you to identify yourself and announce your intentions before you:
A. Secure a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it.
B. Enter a place to search it in response to an emergency.
C. Enter a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it.
Answer: C. Enter a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it.
Explanation:
Under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you are required to identify yourself and announce your intention before entering any place, vehicle, or other thing to conduct a search, unless there are specific circumstances where it is impractical or could jeopardize the search.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Secure a place, vehicle, or other thing to search it: While securing a location may be necessary, it does not specifically require you to identify yourself or announce intentions under the Act unless entry is imminent.
B. Enter a place to search it in response to an emergency: Emergency responses might allow exceptions to identification and announcement obligations, particularly if delays could worsen the situation or cause harm.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012 – Identification and intention announcements required before conducting searches under regular circumstances.
Question 402
Police may interview a person in custody. A person is ‘in custody’ when:
A. Words of arrest are spoken and the person is held in the cells.
B. Words of arrest are spoken and the person is formally cautioned.
C. Words of arrest and physical touch clearly signal the person is not free.
Answer: C. Words of arrest and physical touch clearly signal the person is not free.
Explanation:
A person is considered “in custody” when they are under the control of the Police and it is clearly communicated that they are not free to leave. This typically involves words of arrest being spoken and/or physical actions, such as restraint or holding, to indicate their freedom is restricted.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Words of arrest are spoken and the person is held in the cells:
Being “in custody” does not necessarily mean the person must be held in a cell. Custody can occur in various locations, such as at the scene of the arrest or in a Police vehicle.
B. Words of arrest are spoken and the person is formally cautioned:
While cautioning is part of procedural fairness, it is not required for determining if someone is “in custody.” The key aspect is whether their freedom of movement is restricted.
Source:
New Zealand Police operational guidelines and case law definitions of “in custody” clarify the criteria as involving both verbal and physical indications that a person is not free to leave.
Question 403
The initial action scene party must not move any items in a serious crime scene unless it:
A. Will be affected by the weather and cannot be protected.
B. Can be safely handled and packaged as an exhibit.
C. Needs to be shifted to be photographed and packaged.
Answer: A. Will be affected by the weather and cannot be protected.
Explanation:
The integrity of a crime scene must be preserved to ensure all evidence remains intact and uncontaminated. Items should only be moved in extreme circumstances, such as when the evidence could be irreparably damaged by environmental factors (e.g., rain or wind). In such cases, action should be taken to prevent the loss of evidential value.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Can be safely handled and packaged as an exhibit:
The priority is to maintain the scene as undisturbed as possible. Moving items solely for handling or packaging purposes may compromise the chain of evidence and the context of the scene.
C. Needs to be shifted to be photographed and packaged:
Shifting items for convenience could alter the scene’s integrity and result in challenges to the evidence’s admissibility in court.
Source:
Crime scene management protocols emphasize the preservation of evidence in its original state unless extraordinary circumstances (e.g., environmental risks) justify movement.
Question 404
Which of the following scenarios could be an example of evidence that has been improperly obtained? During an interview with a new immigrant, the interviewer:
A. Takes many breaks throughout a lengthy period of interview.
B. Does not ensure the suspect really understands his rights.
C. Questions persistently when the suspect changes his story.
Answer: B. Does not ensure the suspect really understands his rights.
Explanation:
Evidence obtained during an interview can be considered improperly obtained if the suspect’s rights are not upheld. For new immigrants, language barriers and unfamiliarity with legal processes may mean they do not fully understand their rights unless these are clearly explained and understood. Failing to ensure this would violate procedural fairness and could render the evidence inadmissible.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Takes many breaks throughout a lengthy period of interview:
While breaks may make the interview lengthy, they are not inherently improper. In fact, breaks can be appropriate and even necessary to ensure the interview is conducted fairly and humanely.
C. Questions persistently when the suspect changes his story:
Persistent questioning may be uncomfortable but is not inherently improper unless it becomes oppressive or coercive. It is part of an investigator’s role to challenge inconsistencies.
Source:
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Right to be informed of the reason for arrest or detention and to consult a lawyer.
Police procedural guidance on ensuring fairness during interviews.
Question 405
Jimmy breaches the conditions of the Protection Order held by Jenny when he enters their home and assaults her. Jenny tells you that Jimmy has gone to his mate’s house to pick up his belongings because he says he’s leaving town. Which warrantless power could you use on Jimmy’s mate’s house?
A. s15 Warrantless entry to locate evidential material relating to the offence.
B. s7 Warrantless entry to arrest Jimmy who is now unlawfully at large.
C. s8 Warrantless entry to arrest Jimmy who has committed the offence of assault.
Answer: C. s8 Warrantless entry to arrest Jimmy who has committed the offence of assault.
Explanation:
Under s8 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Police have the power to enter a place without a warrant to arrest a person who has committed an imprisonable offence, such as assault in breach of a Protection Order. Since Jimmy has committed the offence and is at his mate’s house, s8 allows entry to arrest him.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. s15 Warrantless entry to locate evidential material relating to the offence:
Section 15 applies when the entry is necessary to prevent the loss, concealment, alteration, or destruction of evidential material. In this case, the priority is Jimmy’s arrest for breach of the Protection Order and assault, not searching for evidential material.
B. s7 Warrantless entry to arrest Jimmy who is now unlawfully at large:
Jimmy is not “unlawfully at large” because he has not escaped custody or detention. He is a suspect who has committed an offence but remains at large.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Sections 8, 7, and 15.
New Zealand Police guidance on warrantless entry powers.
Question 406
You respond to a call from Comms about people in a car who are reported to have pointed a rifle at passengers in another car. Comms gives you a vehicle description and registration. You locate the car in a public car park. There are three males in the vehicle. You have a power to search the vehicle without warrant because you have:
A. RGTS the passengers have a firearm in the vehicle and RGTB they are committing an offence against the Arms Act 1983.
B. RGTS the passengers have a firearm in the vehicle and RGTS they are committing an offence against the Arms Act 1983.
C. RGTB the passengers have a firearm in the vehicle and RGTS they are committing an offence against the Arms Act 1983.
18
Warrantless searches associated with arms
(1)
A constable who has reasonable grounds to suspect that any 1 or more of the circumstances in subsection (2) exist in relation to a person may, without a warrant, do any or all of the following:
(a)
search the person:
(b)
search any thing in the person’s possession or under his or her control (including a vehicle):
(c)
enter a place or vehicle to carry out any activity under paragraph (a) or (b):
(d)
seize and detain any arms found:
(e)
seize and detain any licence under the Arms Act 1983 that is found.
(2)
The circumstances are that the person is carrying arms, or is in possession of them, or has them under his or her control, and—
(a)
he or she is in breach of the Arms Act 1983; or
(b)
he or she, by reason of his or her physical or mental condition (however caused),—
(i)
is incapable of having proper control of the arms; or
(ii)
may kill or cause bodily injury to any person; or
(c)
that, under the Family Violence Act 2018,—
(i)
a protection order or a police safety order is in force against the person; or
(ii)
there are grounds to make an application against him or her for a protection order.
(3)
A constable may, without a warrant, enter a place or vehicle, search it, seize any arms or any licence under the Arms Act 1983 found there, and detain the arms or licence if he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect that there are arms in the place or vehicle—
(a)
in respect of which a category 3 offence, a category 4 offence, or an offence against the Arms Act 1983 has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; or
(b)
that may be evidential material in relation to a category 3 offence, a category 4 offence, or an offence against the Arms Act 1983.
Question 407
When can you enter a place without warrant to search for evidential material under s83?
A. When you have RGTS that the offender and evidential material can be found in the place.
B. When you have arrested a person and you have RGTB evidential material will be CADD.
C. When you have RGTB that entry cannot be delayed because evidential material will be CADD.
B. When you have arrested a person and you have RGTB evidential material will be CADD.
Question 408
The Hot zone in a serious crime scene can be described as the part of the scene where scene examiners:
A. Search for, uplift, and package items for exhibits and analysis.
B. Reconstruct the scene and formulate a forensic strategy.
C. Conduct forensic analysis of items in the material collection.
Answer: A. Search for, uplift, and package items for exhibits and analysis.
Explanation:
The Hot Zone in a serious crime scene is the most critical area where the crime has occurred and where the majority of physical evidence is likely to be found. This area is carefully managed to ensure the integrity of exhibits, and scene examiners focus on searching for, uplifting, and packaging items for forensic analysis and evidential purposes.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Reconstruct the scene and formulate a forensic strategy:
While reconstruction and strategy formulation are important, these activities typically occur after evidence is secured and outside the immediate Hot Zone.
C. Conduct forensic analysis of items in the material collection:
Forensic analysis of collected items happens later in controlled environments, such as laboratories, and not within the Hot Zone itself.
Source:
Crime Scene Management Guidelines and best practices for managing evidence and maintaining the integrity of crime scenes.
Question 409
You arrive at a house after a neighbour reported hearing screaming and crying from the property. The neighbour says the noise stopped after she saw a man leaving the property in a car. The neighbour is very concerned for the woman who lives there. Can you enter the house without a warrant?
A. Yes, as you have RGTB an offence punishable by imprisonment has occurred on the premises.
B. No, as there is no longer any noise coming from the house and no complaint from the woman who lives there.
C. Yes, as you have RGTS there is a woman inside the house who may require an emergency response.
Answer: C. Yes, as you have RGTS there is a woman inside the house who may require an emergency response.
Explanation:
Under s14 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Police may enter a property without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect (RGTS) that it is necessary to prevent an emergency situation involving harm or risk to life or safety. In this case, the neighbour’s report of screaming and crying, combined with the sudden silence and the man leaving, provides sufficient RGTS that a woman inside may require an emergency response.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. RGTB an offence has occurred does not justify warrantless entry under these circumstances, as there is no current emergency or immediate risk to life and safety tied to the alleged offence.
B. The absence of noise or a direct complaint does not eliminate the risk to the woman’s safety, especially given the neighbour’s concerns and observations.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 14.
Question 410
John, a well-known criminal, threatens to punch Jim in the head with a knuckleduster and then walks off down the road. Jason witnesses the incident. You locate John in the next street. You can search him because:
A. You have RGTS John has committed an offence against s202A(4)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.
B. You have RGTS you will find evidential material relating to the offence on John.
C. You have a witness and John has a criminal record of serious assaults.
Ji
A. You have RGTS John has committed an offence against s202A(4)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.
Chat GPT
Answer: B. You have RGTS you will find evidential material relating to the offence on John.
Explanation:
Under section 16 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, you may search a person without a warrant if you have reasonable grounds to suspect (RGTS) that they have evidential material relating to a specific offence. In this case, John’s possession of a knuckleduster is evidence directly linked to the offence of threatening behaviour with an offensive weapon. RGTS exists because of Jason’s witness account and John’s proximity to the scene.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. While s202A(4)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 addresses the possession of an offensive weapon, this alone does not provide the direct authority to search John without establishing RGTS for evidential material.
C. John’s criminal record, while relevant background information, does not independently provide a lawful basis for conducting a search.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 16; Crimes Act 1961, Section 202A(4)(a).
Question 411
Male A dances with Female B, who is wearing a blue jersey, and he gets blue fibres on his top. Later on that night Male A dances with Female C, and some of the blue fibres are transferred to her shirt. Which of the following is an example of primary transfer?
A. Male A and Female B.
B. Male A and Female C.
C. Female B and Female C.
Answer: A. Male A and Female B.
Explanation:
Primary transfer occurs when material (such as fibres) is directly transferred from one person or object to another. In this case, the blue fibres from Female B’s jersey are transferred directly to Male A’s top when they dance. This direct interaction constitutes a primary transfer.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Male A and Female C involve a secondary transfer, as the fibres from Female B are first transferred to Male A before being passed to Female C.
C. Female B and Female C have no direct interaction; the transfer between them is mediated through Male A, making it a secondary transfer.
Source:
Forensic science principles on primary and secondary transfer mechanisms in trace evidence.
Question 412
You have arrested John for aggravated robbery but would like to obtain further information from him. Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. You can cross-examine him for as long as necessary to gather further evidence against him.
B. You can only question an arrested person to clear up any ambiguities in their previous statements.
C. You can continue to interview him but your questions must not amount to cross-examination.
Answer: C. You can continue to interview him but your questions must not amount to cross-examination.
Explanation:
When interviewing an arrested person, Police are permitted to ask questions to gather further information; however, such questioning must not involve cross-examination. Cross-examination involves repeated or aggressive questioning designed to confuse, trap, or force an admission, which is prohibited under the rules of fair police conduct and could render the interview inadmissible in court. The questions must be fair, reasonable, and aimed at clarifying or obtaining relevant information.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Cross-examining a suspect is not permitted. It breaches legal standards for fairness and the suspect’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
B. While ambiguities can be addressed, this does not limit questioning solely to prior statements. Police are allowed to ask new, relevant questions as long as they adhere to legal and procedural guidelines.
Source:
Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning: Emphasizes that interviews must be fair and conducted in a way that does not involve cross-examination.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 23: Outlines the rights of persons arrested or detained.
R v Weaver (1956): Defines cross-examination in the context of police questioning.
Question 413
Which of the following statements about the Free Recall (FR) model is generally true? When using the FR model the interviewer:
A. Does not explain the ground rules
B. Does not ask probing questions
C. Does not include a challenge phase
Answer: C. Does not include a challenge phase.
Explanation:
The Free Recall (FR) model focuses on allowing the interviewee to freely narrate events without interruption or influence. It avoids introducing a challenge phase as the primary aim is to gather unbiased and uninterrupted information from the interviewee. The FR model prioritizes the use of open-ended questions and minimal guidance, which fosters an environment where the witness or suspect can provide information naturally and in their own words.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Does not explain the ground rules: Ground rules are typically explained at the beginning of interviews to ensure the interviewee understands the process and expectations (e.g., the need for honesty, the importance of saying “I don’t know” if unsure).
B. Does not ask probing questions: While the FR model avoids leading or overly specific questions, probing questions may still be used if necessary to clarify details after the free recall phase.
Source:
Investigative Interviewing Doctrine: Emphasizes the structure and purpose of the Free Recall model in information gathering.
Best practices in investigative interviewing focusing on minimizing bias and ensuring reliability of accounts.
Question 414
John Smith is a well-known receiver of stolen property. You apply for a search warrant to search his residential address. There are no extenuating circumstances that will prevent your execution of the warrant without delay. What is the normal period the warrant will be valid for?
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days.
B. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 21 days.
C. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 30 days.
Ji
A. A period specified by the issuing officer not exceeding 14 days. (30 days if justified)
Question 415
The hot zone in a serious crime scene is best described as:
A. That part of the scene requiring examination and evidence collection.
B. A zone where scene guards record movements of staff to and from the scene.
C. A zone where forensic analysis of exhibits takes place.
Answer: A. That part of the scene requiring examination and evidence collection.
Explanation:
The hot zone in a serious crime scene refers to the immediate area where the crime has occurred and where physical evidence is most likely to be found. This area requires thorough examination and evidence collection to maintain the integrity of the investigation.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. A zone where scene guards record movements of staff to and from the scene: This description refers to the control area or an entry log process, not the hot zone.
C. A zone where forensic analysis of exhibits takes place: Forensic analysis is conducted in controlled environments, such as laboratories, rather than at the crime scene itself.
Source:
Crime Scene Management Guidelines and protocols for preserving evidence.
Question 416
You are executing a search warrant and locate a cellphone referred to on the warrant. You observe the cellphone is turned on. What action should you take to uplift it as an exhibit?
A. Access the contents of the cellphone to identify the owner.
B. Leave it switched on, uplift, and contact HTCG for advice.
C. Turn the phone off, uplift, and seal it in an exhibit package.
Answer: B. Leave it switched on, uplift, and contact HTCG for advice.
Explanation:
When locating a cellphone referred to on a search warrant, it is critical to preserve the integrity of the device and avoid actions that could compromise its evidential value. Leaving the phone switched on ensures data is not lost (e.g., due to encryption triggered by a shutdown), and contacting the High-Tech Crime Group (HTCG) ensures proper procedures are followed to extract any relevant information safely.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Access the contents of the cellphone to identify the owner: Accessing the phone without following strict legal and technical protocols could lead to evidence being deemed inadmissible in court.
C. Turn the phone off, uplift, and seal it in an exhibit package: Turning the phone off may result in data loss or activation of security features (e.g., encryption), making it harder to access the contents later.
Source:
New Zealand Police Digital Evidence Guidelines; procedures for handling electronic devices.
Question 417
The Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning:
A. Directs the conduct of Police interviewing practice as guided by the judiciary.
B. Overrides the requirements for section 23 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.
C. Prevents the need to repeat Bill of Rights advice when arrest occurs at interview.
Answer: A. Directs the conduct of Police interviewing practice as guided by the judiciary.
Explanation:
The Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning provides clear guidelines for how police should conduct interviews to ensure fairness, transparency, and compliance with legal standards. It serves as a judicially approved framework that aligns police practices with the principles of justice and rights protection.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Overrides the requirements for section 23 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990: The Practice Note does not override section 23 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. Instead, it complements it by reinforcing the requirements for informing suspects of their rights.
C. Prevents the need to repeat Bill of Rights advice when arrest occurs at interview: The Practice Note does not prevent the repetition of Bill of Rights advice. Police are required to ensure suspects understand their rights, even if it involves repeating them during the process.
Source:
Chief Justice Practice Note on Police Questioning and NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, section 23.
Question 418
The O/C initial action party is responsible for effectively briefing and conducting handover to an O/C Scene on their arrival at a serious crime scene. What information is essential to the integrity of the crime scene examination?
A. Details of any post-incident movement in the crime scene.
B. Records of notebook entries, observations, and witness details.
C. All known details relating to the offender’s movements.
A. Details of any post-incident movement in the crime scene.
Question 419
If you are a member of an initial action team at the scene of a suspicious death and a medical officer confirms the victim is deceased, then you must secure the scene and:
A. Mark the position of the body and arrange for the undertaker.
B. Do not touch or move the body unless absolutely necessary.
C. Protect the victim’s dignity by covering or arranging the body.
Answer: B. Do not touch or move the body unless absolutely necessary.
Explanation:
At the scene of a suspicious death, preserving the scene in its original state is critical for maintaining the integrity of forensic evidence. The body should not be touched or moved unless absolutely necessary to prevent contamination or loss of evidence. This approach ensures that the scene remains undisturbed for the subsequent investigation by scene examiners and forensic experts.
Why Not the Other Options?
A. Mark the position of the body and arrange for the undertaker: Arranging for an undertaker is premature until the scene has been thoroughly examined by investigators and forensic experts. The position of the body can be recorded without physical interference.
C. Protect the victim’s dignity by covering or arranging the body: While maintaining respect for the deceased is important, covering or arranging the body risks contaminating evidence and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for privacy or other exceptional circumstances.
Source:
New Zealand Police guidelines for managing crime scenes and handling suspicious deaths.
Question 420
Paul is waiting at the bus stop talking on his cellphone. He is approached by Andrea and Jill who demand that he hand over the cellphone to them. Paul ignores them. Andrea then pushes Paul backwards and punches him in the face. Jill grabs the cellphone but Paul manages to get it back from her and the girls run away. Which of the following offences best describes Andrea’s criminal liability?
A. assault with intent to rob ()
B. aggravated robbery )
C. attempted aggravated robbery
Ji
B. aggravated robbery )
Chat GPT
Answer: A. Assault with intent to rob.
Explanation:
Andrea’s actions involve using physical force (pushing and punching Paul) with the intent to rob him of his cellphone. This fits the definition of assault with intent to rob as her physical actions were aimed at facilitating the robbery attempt. However, the robbery was not successful as Paul retained possession of the cellphone.
Why Not the Other Options?
B. Aggravated robbery: Aggravated robbery involves the use of a weapon, serious violence, or causing grievous bodily harm during the commission of a robbery. While Andrea used violence, it does not meet the threshold of “aggravated” robbery as defined in law.
C. Attempted aggravated robbery: For an attempted aggravated robbery charge, there would need to be evidence of an aggravating factor (e.g., a weapon or grievous violence), which is not present here.
Source:
New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 definitions of robbery-related offences and police guidelines for classifying robbery and assault cases.
The offence of Assault with Intent to Rob falls under Section 236 of the Crimes Act 1961.
Key Elements of Section 236:
The offender assaults another person.
The assault is committed with the intent to rob (even if the robbery is unsuccessful).
The use of violence or threat of violence is required, but no grievous bodily harm or weapon is needed for this charge.
Here are some examples of assault with intent to rob under Section 236 of the Crimes Act 1961:
Example 1:
Scenario: A man approaches a pedestrian on the street, demands their wallet, and threatens to punch them if they do not comply. The pedestrian refuses, and the man swings a punch but misses. The man runs away without taking anything.
Explanation: The offender has committed an assault (attempted to punch) and did so with the intent to rob. Even though no property was taken, the intent to rob makes this an offence under Section 236.
Example 2:
Scenario: A group of youths corners a student in a park and demands their phone. One of the youths pushes the student and threatens further violence unless the phone is handed over. The student refuses and manages to escape unharmed.
Explanation: The act of pushing the student constitutes an assault, and it was committed with the intent to rob the phone. Even though the robbery was unsuccessful, it is an offence under Section 236.
Example 3:
Scenario: A person enters a dairy, brandishes a fist at the shopkeeper, and demands money from the till. The shopkeeper refuses, and the offender shoves the shopkeeper but flees before taking any money.
Explanation: The shove is an assault, and the demand for money demonstrates intent to rob. This is an offence under Section 236.
Key Points:
Property does not have to be taken: The intent to rob, combined with an assault, is sufficient.
The violence can be minimal: Even a shove, push, or minor physical contact qualifies as assault.
Unsuccessful attempts still qualify: The offence is complete regardless of whether the robbery is successful.
Question 421
John has escaped from a prison van transporting him from the local court to prison. You see him run into someone’s garden. Can you enter the property to arrest John?
A. Yes, because John is unlawfully at large and you have RGTS he is on the property
B. No, because even though you have RGTB he is on the property John is not unlawfully at large
C. Yes, because John is unlawfully at large and you have RGTB he is on the property
Answer: C. Yes, because John is unlawfully at large and you have RGTB he is on the property.
Explanation:
Under Section 7 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Police can enter a place without a warrant to arrest a person who is unlawfully at large. “Unlawfully at large” includes situations where a person has escaped custody, such as from a prison van. If you have reasonable grounds to believe (RGTB) John is on the property, you may enter to arrest him.
Why Not the Other Options?
A: RGTS (Reasonable Grounds to Suspect) is insufficient for entering a property under s7. The standard required is RGTB (Reasonable Grounds to Believe).
B: John is unlawfully at large because he escaped custody. This option incorrectly states that he is not unlawfully at large.
Source:
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Section 7: Warrantless entry to arrest unlawfully at large persons.
