A man was killed and several more injured in a shooting in Mt. Roskill on Thursday evening.
Video / Hayden Woodward
Police are reviewing their criminal disclosure processes after a failure to supply crucial evidence to the defence aborted a murder trial in Auckland.
Late last month a trial began in the Auckland High Court for three men accused of murdering young Auckland barber Brian James.
A few days into the Crown case it emerged two notebooks and hundreds of photographs had not made their way to the defence lawyers.
Justice Andrew Becroft came to the conclusion he had no option but to abort the trial after just three days of evidence.
In an excoriating judgment setting out his reasons for ending the trial, Justice Becroft said the jury was becoming frustrated and losing confidence in the criminal justice system.
“This trial has been bedevilled by grossly inadequate compliance by the police and the Crown with their statutory disclosure obligations,” Justice Becroft said.
In response to questions from the Herald, a police spokesman said a review would be carried out.
“We acknowledge the finding of the court regarding this trial and have immediately sought to rectify the issues identified,” the statement said.
“We are conducting a review of the disclosure in this case to ensure that our processes and training provide the platform for file managers to comply with all statutory requirements.
“Police will continue to work closely with the Crown to ensure that disclosure obligations are met.”
Accused of the murder of Brian James in Mt Roskill two days before Christmas in 2021 are (from left) Apisaloma Timoti, Angelo Junior Thomsen and Robin Leota, who were on trial in the Auckland High Court. Photos / George Block
The statement did not address questions about whether any action would be taken against any police staff.
“Police are unable to publicly comment in relation to employment process related matters.”
Disclosure is a fundamental part of criminal trials. Failures by police to disclose evidence or information they held have been implicated in several high-profile mistrials or miscarriages of justice.
The prosecution is required by law to disclose to a defendant all evidence against them and other relevant information held by police, including witness statements, lists of exhibits, photos of the scene, 111 call recordings, prior convictions of witnesses an various other materials.
A recent High Court practice note describes disclosure as an integral part of any investigation and prosecution.
“It ensures a fair and transparent process and is a vital safeguard against miscarriages of justice,” the memo says.
Justice Becroft said that on Wednesday, July 26, a couple of days into the trial, it emerged 250 police photographs had been found and disclosed that day.
Crown prosecutor Sam McMullan concluded a key witness would need to be recalled and the new evidence put to her.
McMullan is not criticised in the judgment. The Judge said his assurances regarding disclosure proved hollow, but could do no more than rely on what he was told by the detective running the case and the officer in charge of exhibits.
Justice Becroft lays the blame for the disclosure failures squarely at the feet of police. McMullan conducted himself in a way that was “consistent with the highest obligations of officers of this court”, Justice Becroft said.
“I cannot help but observe, and I say this as fairly and transparently as I can, that this is a case where police statutory disclosure obligations have fallen significantly and apparently consistently short of the mark,” Justice Becroft said.
“It is a matter of real concern. The defendants here, each of them, face the highest and most serious charge known to the criminal calendar.”
On Friday, July 28, the judge concluded that, once the extent of the disclosure failures had become clear, any further disclosure “would put the trial at severe risk”.
Along with the photographs, a detective’s notebook had been disclosed as late as last Thursday morning.
Then, in addition to that notebook, it emerged there was another notebook which had recently gone missing but had been found and was made available to the defence on Monday morning.
Justice Becroft described the disclosure failures as comprehensive. He said the volume of ongoing late disclosure was too large, the defence was clearly compromised and the disclosure issues would form an obvious appeal point if the men were convicted.
“The implications arising from the new evidence are too significant.”
Justice Becroft discharged the jury at 2.15pm on Monday July 31, and aborted the trial. A new trial date is expected to be set for early next year.
