Admissibility of evidence — police interview — length of interview — indecency with a girl under 12 — sexual conduct with a girl under 12 — sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection — Evidence Act 2002, s 27. The defendant faced multiple charges of indecency with a girl under 12, sexual conduct with a girl under 12 and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. He submitted that his three and a half hour interview with a police officer should be ruled inadmissible. Counsel for the defendant submitted much of the interview was rambling, long and irrelevant. It was submitted the prejudicial effects outweighed any probative value it may provide a jury. The Crown submitted the interview was admissible because it was relevant, was both inculpatory and exculpatory, contained admissions the Crown wished to rely on, established memories the defendant had, contained confirmation by the defendant of details revealed by the complainant, and contained admissions by the defendant of behaviour in relation to the complainant which was directly relevant to the sexual allegations. The Judge found the interview was prima facie admissible. There was no evidence of incapacity, impropriety by the police officer or breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Length of an interview is not a sufficient basis to say prejudicial effect outweighs probative value. It was directed the Crown and counsel for the defendant had to decide between themselves which parts of the interview were irrelevant, but otherwise it was admissible. Judgment Date: 5 July 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *