Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The police had argued the so-called Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model should not be made public because of the risk it could be misused by untrained investigators or make suspects suspicious. The media organisation Stuff took legal action, arguing it was in the public interest to be able to scrutinise police conduct in the case."
----------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Tolley Murder case: Crown and police lose legal fight over interview technique," published by The New Zealand Herald (no attribution), on August 5, 2022.
GIST: "Crown lawyers and the police have lost a legal fight to keep secret the Crown lawyers and the police have lost a legal fight to keep secret the contentious interviewing technique used in the failed prosecution of the Lois Tolley murder case.
The method, likened by the High Court judge to "a fireside chat", was used in extracting a confession from one of three men charged over the shooting of Tolley in her Upper Hutt home in December 2016.
All charges were withdrawn after the cases against the trio unravelled separately late last year. Many details of the case against the men remain suppressed.
The police had argued the so-called Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model should not be made public because of the risk it could be misused by untrained investigators or make suspects suspicious.
The media organisation Stuff took legal action, arguing it was in the public interest to be able to scrutinise police conduct in the case.
In revoking his suppression order, Justice Simon France agreed there was "legitimate public interest in querying a specialist interviewing model that's been poorly used”.
"Numerous breaches of several rules were identified, and it is legitimate to query the correctness of the underlying method."
Furthermore, the technique itself merited public scrutiny, he said.
"It is a method that has the effect of downplaying, or arguably obscuring, the true nature of what is occurring. Mr X was a suspect in a murder who was being interviewed because the police had information implicating him.
"Yet an environment is created where what seems almost a fireside chat occurs. There are none of the typical trappings of a suspect interview.
"Whether this is legitimate or desirable is not for the Court at this moment to comment on; it is something, however, that merits discussion."
The rules on interviewing criminal suspects were long established and compliance was "necessary and expected", he noted.
"The consequences of untrue admissions are often dramatic and a source of miscarriage.""
The entire story can be read at:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See 'Stuff story at link below: "CIPEM, which was developed by Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald, the national crime manager, aims to get suspects who are reluctant to talk to police, to open up to detectives. This is done by replacing normal police interview scenarios with a “fireside chat” environment, with comfortable chairs, no desk or note-taking, shared food, and police appearing empathetic. The interviewing model has been used by police since 2018, but nothing was reported about its existence until February, after the case against three men accused of murdering Upper Hutt woman Lois Tolley collapsed. In that case, Justice France ruled that detectives using CIPEM to interview one of the men charged with the murder (known as “X” due to suppression orders) broke numerous fundamental guidelines. The judge said the officers misled X, and “manipulated” him to make a confession that was “very flawed” and “not credible”, and “improperly obtained by an unfair process”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
