Latest news with #EvidenceAct
Scoop
11-05-2025
- Scoop
Inadmissible Evidence: Why A Routine Traffic Stop And Police Photo Went All The Way To The Supreme Court
Article – The Conversation A recent decision by New Zealands highest court means police will need to be extra careful about how they obtain and use evidence in criminal investigations. A recent Supreme Court decision could have far reaching consequences on how police can use photographs as evidence. The central question in Mahia Tamiefuna v The King was whether a photo taken by a police officer on a public road during a routine traffic stop could be used to convict a person of an unrelated crime. According to the decision, which became public this week, the answer is no. And there are clear and compelling reasons why a majority of the court made this call. The Tamiefuna case The Tamiefuna case started with a traffic stop by a police officer in 2019. Finding the driver was unlicensed, the officer impounded the car and the occupants had to get out. While they were standing on the road, the officer took pictures of them with his phone and uploaded the images to the national intelligence database. The photo of Tamiefuna matched CCTV footage taken three days earlier after an aggravated robbery. At the time of the robbery, police weren't able to identify Tamiefuna because his face was obscured. But after the photo was uploaded to the database, police realised the clothing Tamiefuna was wearing in the photo matched the clothing from the aggravated robbery. The photo became a key piece of evidence linking him to that case and resulted in a conviction of aggravated robbery. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed before the case came before the Supreme Court, where a majority of the court agreed with his arguments. The court found the taking of the photo was unlawful and unreasonable because the officer wasn't investigating any specific crime when he took it. Uploading the photo to the database and keeping it there was also unlawful and unreasonable. If the officer had been investigating a specific crime, there is a legal framework that would have allowed the taking of photos and other information by police. The impropriety in taking and retaining the photo was such that the court said it should have been excluded from Tamiefuna's trial under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Crown has subsequently said it would not seek a retrial of Tamiefuna due to insufficient evidence. He is a free man. Improperly obtained evidence Under the Evidence Act, a judge must decide whether to exclude evidence from the trial if a court finds it was obtained improperly. That decision is made by balancing whether exclusion would be 'proportionate to the wrongdoing'. In making that decision, the judge has to take account of 'the need for an effective and credible system of justice'. If the evidence is excluded, the judge may be depriving the jury of relevant material which could help them determine what truly happened. As such, we need a strong justification for why it may be right to keep evidence out of a trial. In my view, there are two compelling justifications for what happened in Tamiefuna's case. The first is called the 'rights thesis': the idea that we should exclude evidence if it has been obtained in breach of a defendant's rights. The logic is that if parliament declares we have a right, it should be taken seriously. And there should be consequences for violating a person's rights. When evidence is obtained through breaching a person's rights, the most appropriate remedy is the exclusion of the evidence. For Tamiefuna, the evidence was obtained in breach of his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. With the rights thesis, we return a person back to the position they would have been in had the breach not happened. Protecting the integrity of the justice system The other justification is that we should exclude evidence if we need to uphold the integrity of the justice system (the 'integrity principle'). Courts need the ability to exclude improperly obtained evidence, because integrity as a rule-of-law concept requires our courts to act coherently. By this logic, they shouldn't ignore wrongdoing in the obtaining of evidence. The court shouldn't condone illegal actions by state actors such as the police, while condemning some other conduct by finding someone guilty of crime. It matters if evidence is obtained in breach of a right. In circumstances where parliament has marked out certain rights by including them in the Bill of Rights Act, relying on evidence obtained in breach of such rights raises serious integrity concerns. The best way for the court to show it's acting with integrity would be to approach this sort of evidence by presuming it should be excluded. This may mean that 'the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered', as American judge Benjamin Cardazo once complained. But that is a consequence we have to accept to be sure we have an effective and credible system of justice. Tamiefuna's case will likely lead to greater guidance for police around the taking of pictures so the same thing doesn't happen in the future. Some people might baulk at Tamiefuna going free, but it's the right decision overall.
Scoop
11-05-2025
- Scoop
Inadmissible Evidence: Why A Routine Traffic Stop And Police Photo Went All The Way To The Supreme Court
A recent Supreme Court decision could have far reaching consequences on how police can use photographs as evidence. The central question in Mahia Tamiefuna v The King was whether a photo taken by a police officer on a public road during a routine traffic stop could be used to convict a person of an unrelated crime. According to the decision, which became public this week, the answer is no. And there are clear and compelling reasons why a majority of the court made this call. The Tamiefuna case The Tamiefuna case started with a traffic stop by a police officer in 2019. Finding the driver was unlicensed, the officer impounded the car and the occupants had to get out. While they were standing on the road, the officer took pictures of them with his phone and uploaded the images to the national intelligence database. The photo of Tamiefuna matched CCTV footage taken three days earlier after an aggravated robbery. At the time of the robbery, police weren't able to identify Tamiefuna because his face was obscured. But after the photo was uploaded to the database, police realised the clothing Tamiefuna was wearing in the photo matched the clothing from the aggravated robbery. The photo became a key piece of evidence linking him to that case and resulted in a conviction of aggravated robbery. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed before the case came before the Supreme Court, where a majority of the court agreed with his arguments. The court found the taking of the photo was unlawful and unreasonable because the officer wasn't investigating any specific crime when he took it. Uploading the photo to the database and keeping it there was also unlawful and unreasonable. If the officer had been investigating a specific crime, there is a legal framework that would have allowed the taking of photos and other information by police. The impropriety in taking and retaining the photo was such that the court said it should have been excluded from Tamiefuna's trial under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Crown has subsequently said it would not seek a retrial of Tamiefuna due to insufficient evidence. He is a free man. Improperly obtained evidence Under the Evidence Act, a judge must decide whether to exclude evidence from the trial if a court finds it was obtained improperly. That decision is made by balancing whether exclusion would be 'proportionate to the wrongdoing'. In making that decision, the judge has to take account of 'the need for an effective and credible system of justice'. If the evidence is excluded, the judge may be depriving the jury of relevant material which could help them determine what truly happened. As such, we need a strong justification for why it may be right to keep evidence out of a trial. In my view, there are two compelling justifications for what happened in Tamiefuna's case. The first is called the 'rights thesis': the idea that we should exclude evidence if it has been obtained in breach of a defendant's rights. The logic is that if parliament declares we have a right, it should be taken seriously. And there should be consequences for violating a person's rights. When evidence is obtained through breaching a person's rights, the most appropriate remedy is the exclusion of the evidence. For Tamiefuna, the evidence was obtained in breach of his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. With the rights thesis, we return a person back to the position they would have been in had the breach not happened. Protecting the integrity of the justice system The other justification is that we should exclude evidence if we need to uphold the integrity of the justice system (the 'integrity principle'). Courts need the ability to exclude improperly obtained evidence, because integrity as a rule-of-law concept requires our courts to act coherently. By this logic, they shouldn't ignore wrongdoing in the obtaining of evidence. The court shouldn't condone illegal actions by state actors such as the police, while condemning some other conduct by finding someone guilty of crime. It matters if evidence is obtained in breach of a right. In circumstances where parliament has marked out certain rights by including them in the Bill of Rights Act, relying on evidence obtained in breach of such rights raises serious integrity concerns. The best way for the court to show it's acting with integrity would be to approach this sort of evidence by presuming it should be excluded. This may mean that 'the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered', as American judge Benjamin Cardazo once complained. But that is a consequence we have to accept to be sure we have an effective and credible system of justice. Tamiefuna's case will likely lead to greater guidance for police around the taking of pictures so the same thing doesn't happen in the future. Some people might baulk at Tamiefuna going free, but it's the right decision overall.
NDTV
09-05-2025
- NDTV
Top Court Frees 6 Murder Accused "With Heavy Heart" As 71 Witnesses Turn Hostile
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday "with a heavy heart" acquitted six murder accused after majority witnesses, including the victim's son, turned hostile in the case. The "unsolved crime" saw 71 of the total 87 witnesses retracting from their statements. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Karnataka High Court's September 27, 2023 order which rejected the trial court's finding and convicted the six accused in the case. "With a heavy heart for the unsolved crime, but with absolutely no misgivings on the issue of lack of evidence, against the accused arrayed, we acquit the accused, reversing the judgment of the high court and restoring that of the trial court," Justice Chandran said in a 49-page verdict he authored on behalf of the bench. The bench lamented the witnesses turning hostile in court and the "overzealous" investigation which was in "total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law" often reducing "prosecution to a mockery". "Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind. Here is a classic case of 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye witnesses, turning hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses," the bench said. The court went on, "Even a young boy, the crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify the assailants." The high court, the top court said, relied on the testimony of the police and official witnesses to convict the accused. "We cannot but say that the high court has egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available," the bench said. After analysing the evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses, the court's "only view" held the prosecution's utter failure in proving the allegations against the accused. "More so all the witnesses had turned hostile during the trial," it added. "Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the investigating officers which is founded only on Section 161 CrPC statements and voluntary statements of accused; the former violative of Section 162 of the CrPC and the latter in breach of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act," the bench held. Directing the release of the accused, if in custody and not required in any other case, the court said, "Truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led, either direct or indirect, and in the event of it being circumstantial, providing a chain of circumstances with connecting links leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and only the guilt of the accused, without leaving any reasonable doubt for any hypothesis of innocence." The bench said it could only accede to and share the consternation of the division bench of the high court, "bordering on desperation" owing to the "futility" of the entire exercise. "That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence," it added. It came on record that a rivalry between two brothers resulted in the death of one Ramkrishna, who worked for one of them before joining the other brother. The former employee along with his six associates conspired and killed Ramkrishna for shifting loyalties when he was taking stroll with his son on April 28, 2011, the police alleged.
Hindustan Times
09-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
SC frees 6 murder accused 'with heavy heart' as 71 of 87 witnesses turn hostile
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday "with a heavy heart" acquitted six murder accused after majority witnesses, including the victim's son, turned hostile in the case. The "unsolved crime" saw 71 of the total 87 witnesses retracting from their statements. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Karnataka High Court's September 27, 2023 order which rejected the trial court's finding and convicted the six accused in the case. "With a heavy heart for the unsolved crime, but with absolutely no misgivings on the issue of lack of evidence, against the accused arrayed, we acquit the accused, reversing the judgment of the high court and restoring that of the trial court," Justice Chandran said in a 49-page verdict he authored on behalf of the bench. The bench lamented the witnesses turning hostile in court and the "overzealous" investigation which was in "total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law" often reducing "prosecution to a mockery". "Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind. Here is a classic case of 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye witnesses, turning hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses," the bench said. The court went on, "Even a young boy, the crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify the assailants." The high court, the top court said, relied on the testimony of the police and official witnesses to convict the accused. "We cannot but say that the high court has egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available," the bench said. After analysing the evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses, the court's "only view" held the prosecution's utter failure in proving the allegations against the accused. "More so all the witnesses had turned hostile during the trial," it added. "Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the investigating officers which is founded only on Section 161 CrPC statements and voluntary statements of accused; the former violative of Section 162 of the CrPC and the latter in breach of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act," the bench held. Directing the release of the accused, if in custody and not required in any other case, the court said, "Truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led, either direct or indirect, and in the event of it being circumstantial, providing a chain of circumstances with connecting links leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and only the guilt of the accused, without leaving any reasonable doubt for any hypothesis of innocence." The bench said it could only accede to and share the consternation of the division bench of the high court, "bordering on desperation" owing to the "futility" of the entire exercise. "That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence," it added. It came on record that a rivalry between two brothers resulted in the death of one Ramkrishna, who worked for one of them before joining the other brother. The former employee along with his six associates conspired and killed Ramkrishna for shifting loyalties when he was taking stroll with his son on April 28, 2011, the police alleged.
India Today
29-04-2025
- India Today
Supreme Court frees woman jailed for daughters' murders: Mental illness overlooked
In April 2015, Chunni Bai, a resident of Chhattisgarh, began going around her village claiming to be "Mata" and "Budi Dai." Concerned by her behaviour, her husband took her to a psychiatrist at a government hospital, where she was prescribed medication. Ten days later, she killed her two daughters with a crowbar. She was arrested and later convicted of murder by a trial nearly 10 years later, the Supreme Court has ordered her release, ruling that she be freed based on the sentence already served. The court noted that her mental condition had not been adequately considered during her trial.'It is not common for rustic persons to be aware of various mental disorders or illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, which may temporarily impair an individual's mental condition,' the court observed in its order. "More often than not, these disorders go unrecognised and untreated, as the symptoms can be difficult to identify, and the affected individuals do not seek proper and timely medical intervention. As a result, these conditions are often misinterpreted as being caused by spells or the influence of invisible forces rooted in superstition."A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotishwar Singh held that the "inexplicable and bizarre" nature of the crime should have prompted a deeper examination by the trial court, even though the accused did not enter a formal plea of court pointed out that Chunni Bai's father-in-law had told police about her altered mental state and the supposed "invisible influence," but the matter was not investigated further. Instead, the police built their case on eyewitness testimony, fingerprint evidence, and Chunni Bai's own confession.'We would like to make certain observations that, in our opinion, trial courts should keep in mind while dealing with such cases—especially when the accused claims to have been under the influence of invisible forces or where the prosecution is unable to explain the motive behind the homicide,' the bench stated. 'When the evidence on record shows highly unusual and inexplicable circumstances under which the crime was committed, as in the present case, these aspects must be thoroughly examined.'The court further stated that, even if the accused remains silent, the judiciary has a duty to seek the truth.'If such circumstances emerge during the trial and remain bizarre and inexplicable, the court, in our opinion, should question the witnesses as necessary by invoking Section 165 of the Evidence Act,' the court bench stressed that this approach is essential when the accused pleads the existence of circumstances beyond their control, which may indicate temporary mental the accused, at the time of committing the crime, was incapable of making a conscious and informed decision, or was suffering from mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind—even temporarily—it raises a question about the presence of intent,' the court noted. 'In such cases, the benefit of the doubt may be extended to the accused regarding intention and mens rea, as these factors determine the nature of conviction and the sentence to be imposed.'
