On September 10, 2020, Detective Jeremy Dix made what he called a “preventative visit” to the defendant’s house.
The case against the man was gaining momentum; an evidential interview had been completed with one complainant and another had been spoken to on the phone.
The defendant said Dix did not tell him the purpose of the visit but told him he had “nothing to worry about” and the police were trying to “protect” him.
The suspect asked if he could contact a lawyer and said he was told he could not, although the officer disputed that at a pre-trial hearing.
The defendant had a camera set up in his home in preparation for the visit and when Dix arrived he asked if he could record their conversation.
His request was declined because the detective said he was not comfortable being on camera.
“Quite what authority Detective Dix had to deny [the defendant] the right to videotape or record the visit, in [his] own home, has not been explained. That Detective Dix did so causes concern,” the Court of Appeal decision said.
Dix asked the defendant to provide a list of all the girls who had babysat for him and their phone numbers.
He complied but later said he was “not happy” about handing over that information.
The contact details led to police finding a third complainant and a fourth woman who was set to give propensity evidence (not the subject of a charge but intended to prove the defendant’s ongoing course of conduct).
The court ruled that by the time of the home visit, Dix had enough evidence to charge him and so should have cautioned him.
“Detective Dix put [him] in the position of supplying information to the police without knowing he was to be charged in relation to the allegations made by Complainants one and two,” the decision said.
“Breaches of that fundamental right should be viewed as extremely serious and the courts’ response should likewise be a serious one.”
The court also highlighted the fact English was not the defendant’s first language and he relied on a translator at trial.
“To our mind, this emphasises his vulnerability and that the police should have been particularly cautious in their approach to him at the time of the visit,” Justices Wylie, Thomas and Brewer said.
Despite Dix not taking any notes of the visit and acknowledging his memory of the event was unclear, Judge Kevin Phillips in the District Court preferred his evidence over the defendant’s.
The evidence obtained by police was ruled admissible but that was overturned on appeal following a hearing in June.
“We consider that the credibility of the justice system can be maintained only if the police are held to minimum standards, particularly when such important principles are involved,” the Court of Appeal decision said.
“[The defendant] was effectively required to be his own betrayer. We are sufficiently concerned about the seriousness of the breach and the unfairness that we conclude the evidence obtained as a result should be ruled inadmissible.”
felicity.dear@odt.co.nz
