Court supports taping

Press, 3 April 1989, Page 8

Court supports taping

PA Auckland Videotaping of police interviews has received the support of the Court of Appeal. The Court said challenges relating to the admissibility of statements made to the police were unlikely to occur if interviews were recorded.

It made the point in a judgment dismissing an appeal by a woman jailed for conspiring to import morphine.

Charmaine Loretta Webster, aged 36, of Tangiteroria, contended that her initial statement to the police, in which she admitted involvement in the drug smuggling, was not admissible in court because she had been denied access to a lawyer. Mr Barry Hart, counsel for Webster, told the Court of Appeal that his client had been denied a fundamental right when her repeated requests for a lawyer were refused by the police.

He submitted that the police failure to permit access to a solicitor was unfair, and rendered her subsequent confession inadmissible as evidence.

Webster’s appeal followed her conviction in the High Court at Auckland in August.

She was one of six people imprisoned for conspiring to import morphine between May 1 and October 16, 1987. Webster had originally denied the charge, but pleaded guilty when Mr Justice Tompkins ruled that her statement to the police was admissible.

His Honour said he did not accept Webster’s claim that she asked three times for a lawyer to be present — and was refused — while being questioned at the Whangarei police station in December, 1987. Webster alleged the interviewing detective became angry and told her she was "not having a laywer.”

She had felt uncomfortable and confused.

The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Bisson, said the High Court judge was entitled to use his discretion and admit Webster’s statement in evidence.. He held there had been no miscarriage of justice.

Mr Justice Bisson said the Court of Appeal did not favour a submission by Mr Hart that all confessions of criminal involvement, made after a request for a lawyer had been refused, be deemed inadmissible.

The present system, whereby judges exercised their discretion, was preferable.

His Honour concluded: “Had the statements been recorded on videotape, it is unlikely that the issue would have arisen.”

Videotaping of statements is soon to start on a six-month trial in the Manukau, Wellington and Christchurch police districts.