----------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Other areas the commission wants feedback on include the use of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and tikanga Māori (customary practices); visual identification evidence; novel scientific evidence; and the limits of medical privilege which preclude details of some medical consultations being used in court."
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: "Roberto Conchie Harris was one of three jailhouse snitches who testified David Tamihere confessed to murdering Swedish tourists Heidi Paakkonen and Urban Hoglin. A private prosecution later resulted in Harris being convicted of perjury for the evidence he gave at Tamihere’s trial. The Law Commission wants to ensure such prison informant evidence is reliable before it is given in court."
CAPTION: "At Scott Watson’s trial for murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, two prison witnesses claimed Watson confessed to killing the friends. One received a car and phone from police, and a significantly reduced sentence for serious charges he was facing. Watson has always emphatically denied the allegations."
CAPTION: "Thirty years after being convicted of the murder of two Swedish tourists, Sven Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen, David Tamihere will have his case re-considered by the Court of Appeal for the second time (First published in April 2020);
GIST: "The public are being given the chance to comment on controversial aspects of the justice system, including the use of evidence obtained from jailhouse snitches and controversial police tactics.
The Law Commission, which advises the government on reform and development of New Zealand’s laws, is reviewing the Evidence Act, which governs what can be presented in our courts.
It suggests one option could be adopting a default position of excluding jailhouse snitch evidence, with it only being admitted if a judge could be convinced it was reliable.
In addition, judges could be required to warn juries of the risks of such evidence every time a prison informant is used, and include a series of things jurors should consider before accepting the snitch testimony.
Otago University associate professor Anna High, who has studied the use of prison informants, has welcomed the Law Commission examining this issue.
“It’s an exceptionally concerning category of witness.”
Overseas studies have shown jailhouse snitch evidence is one of the leading causes of false convictions and is very influential with juries, High said.
“I think you can certainly argue we’ve been too slow, and we are somewhat behind the ball as compared to the safeguards in other jurisdictions.
“We can’t simply just leave it and trust juries to know what to do with the complexity of these various factors.”
Another area the Law Commission is calling for public input on, is how to prevent false confessions that may arise from police tactics like Mr Big undercover stings, and the controversial Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (CIPEM), both of which Stuff has investigated in depth.
The Mr Big technique resulted in the false confession and wrongful imprisonment of David Lyttle; and CIPEM interviews led to a false confession from a suspect in the murder of Upper Hutt woman Lois Tolley.
“Our preliminary view is that the courts should be able to consider the risk that an investigatory technique could produce unreliable evidence,” the commission states.
“It may encourage the use of similar techniques in future, increasing the risk of unreliable evidence in general.
“This may have a detrimental effect on public trust and confidence in the justice system, as is already evident from public criticism of Mr Big operations and CIPEM.”
Other areas the commission wants feedback on include the use of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and tikanga Māori (customary practices); visual identification evidence; novel scientific evidence; and the limits of medical privilege which preclude details of some medical consultations being used in court.
This is the third and final review of the 2006 Evidence Act, and the commission will provide its recommendations to the Justice Minister by February 2024.
Any changes to the legislation and laws have to be made by government.
The consultation paper can be found on the commission’s website, with submissions closing on June 30."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131974165/call-for-public-input-on-controlling-controversial-police-tactics-and-jailhouse-snitches
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
----------------------------------------------------------
