Pretrial — sexual conduct with a child under 12 — admissibility of evidence — interview transcript — relevance — Evidence Act 2006, ss 7, 37 & 101 — Wi v R [2009] NZSC 121 — R v R [2018] NZCA 529 — Henderson v R [2007] NZCA 524 — A (CA664/2008) v R [2009] NZCA 250 — R (CA129/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 235 — R v E [2008] NZCA 404 — Mireille Cyr, Conducting Interviews with Child Victims of Abuse and Witnesses of Crime – a Practical Guide (Routledge, Taylor and Francis, London and New York) — National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Protocol. The defendant was on trial for two charges of sexual conduct with a child under the age of 12. In the current pretrial application, he challenged the admissibility of parts of the evidence of four prosecution witnesses. The first witness was the complainant herself, who had given an evidential video statement (EVI) to police. The defendant submitted that parts of the EVI, where the complainant discussed making art and watching movies, were irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. The Court found that the relevant parts of the EVI arguably conformed to proper techniques for interviewing child witnesses. However this did not determine the question of whether the jury should be allowed to view those parts of the EVI. The Court found that the first part of the EVI at the start of the interview was relevant and admissible, in that it helped to establish the reliability and credibility of the complainant. However the Court directed that a part of the EVI where the complainant used the word "rape" be excluded, given that there were no allegations of rape against the defendant. The defendant also objected to parts of the evidence of a school counsellor, who gave evidence of the complainant's self-harming in response to the alleged offending. The Crown argued that this evidence helped explain the delay between the alleged offending and the disclosure by the complainant. The Court found that there was no need to refer to the self-harm to explain the delay. Further, there was a delay of some five years between the alleged offending and the self-harming, so to mention the self-harming carried a high risk of illegitimate prejudice. Next, the Court barred a reference by the complainant's mother to another family member, who was not being called as a witness; and to the complainant's mother's "feeling" that there had been something wrong with the complainant. Finally, the Court excluded the entire witness statement of a police officer who had arrested the defendant, finding it irrelevant and prejudicial. Judgment Date: 23 January 2023