Admissibility of evidence — lawfulness of arrest — nominated person — rights of child — arrest and detention — public interest — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 2, 4A, 5, 7AA, 9, 208, 214, 215, 217, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226 & 245 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 9, 23 & 25 — Crimes Act 1961, ss 188 & 315 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30 — Treaty of Waitangi — UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts 37 & 40 — Elias CJ “Practice Note on Police Questioning (s 30(6) Evidence Act 2006)” (16 July 2007) — UN General Comment on Child Justice — Beijing Rules — Havana Rules — Riyadh Guidelines — Graeme Austin The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the domestic law (1994) 1 BFLJ 63 — Police v Z K W-W [2013] NZYC 580 — YP v Youth Court at Upper Hutt HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-1905, 30 January 2007 — R v H [2017] NZHC 3223 — Elia v R [2012] NZCA 243, (2012) 29 FRNZ 27 — R v Z [2008] NZCA 246 — Campbell v R [2014] NZCA 376 — Campbell v R [2015] NZCA 452 — R v S (1997) 15 CRNZ 214 — A v R HC Auckland CRI 2003-292-1224, 23 June 2004 — Salduz v Turkey Grand Chamber, ECHR 36391/02, 27 November 2008 — Panovits v Cyprus ECHR 4268/04, 11 March 2009 — Ashby v Minister of Immigration [1981]1 NZLR 222 CA — Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1; (2004) 7 HRNZ 301 (CA) — Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 — TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force [2022] NZSC 69 — Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2 — TV3 v R HC Auckland CRI 2005-92-14652, 7 July 2006 — Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZLR 546 — Derrick-Hardie v Police HC Auckland, CRI 2011-404-000286 15 September 2011 — R v K HC Whangarei, CRI 2008 027-2728, 27 January 2010 — R v Rawiri HC Auckland T014047, 3 July 2002 — DP v R [2015] NZCA 476 — Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114 — S v Police (2005) 25 FRNZ 817 HC — Police v SM [2015] NZYC 666 — NZ Police v FG [2020] NZYC 328 — NZ Police v JH [2020] NZYC 396 — Police v GW [2020] NZYC 629. The young person faced a charge of wounding with reckless disregard for safety. The police had arrested the young person and spoken to him and his father (as his nominated person). At issue was whether the arrest was lawful and whether the DVD interview evidence was admissible. A child's vulnerability as a young person entitles them to special protection. The Court looked to the protections available under domestic legislation and those in international treaties to which New Zealand is a party. The Court concluded that the rights a young person has under the Oranga Tamariki Act must be read in a way that is consistent with international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In assessing the admissibility of the young person's statement "I shot the lady", the Court took into account the fact that it was made in direct response to a police constable's question; that the young person was essentially detained; and that the constable had sufficient knowledge of the young person's reason for being at the station to require the constable to give the young person his rights caution. As such, the statement was held not to be spontaneous. It was unfairly and improperly obtained and was therefore inadmissible. In considering the lawfulness of the young person's arrest, the Court referred to the first Youth Justice principle that criminal proceedings should not be instituted if there is an alternative means of dealing with the matter. The Court found that the Constable did not have reasonable grounds for believing an arrest was required in the public interest. With regards to the DVD interview, the Constable had also failed to explain properly to the young person his rights, and had given the explanation in a manner that the young person was not likely to understand. This requirement was supported by various international conventions, rules and case law. The DVD interview statements were therefore also deemed inadmissible. Judgment Date: 3 April 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **