Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Call to disclose police identity

PA Wellington Rules about the disclosing of an undercover officer's true identity should be weighted in favour of the accused, the Court of Appeal was told. Mr Derek Quilliam submitted that the identity of undercover police officers should be disclosed to an accused person so that inquiries could be made, if necessary, to test the case fully. A full Bench of five Court of Appeal judges has reserved decision on the Crown’s appeal against a District Court judge’s ruling at. Napier that defence counsel could question an undercover officer about his true identity. After the judge’s ruling, the prosecutor decided to call no evidence and the accused, Ross Anthony Hughes, was acquitted on the five charges he faced. Mr Quilliam said an accused had the right to know who his accuser

was, although he said he conceded that in Hughes’s case it was almost certain that nothing could have come from the disclosure.

In an Auckland case, however, there was concern about the motives of an undercover officer and the disclosure of his true identity was thought necessary to test his credibility, Mr Quilliam said.

He submitted that the rules about disclosure should be weighted in favour of the accused and only departed from in exceptional circumstances. In most cases, the knowledge of an undercover officer’s identity would not lead anywhere, but it was important because of the broader issue involved. The officer’s name should be disclosed at the depositions stage, and could be written down and shown to the accused and his counsel, Mr Quil-

liam said. Earlier, the SolicitorGeneral, Mr Paul Neazor, Q.C., submitted that any detriment to an accused not told the true identity of an officer would be minimal. He said it was an acceptable risk.

Mr Neazor said that if there was reason to believe that disclosure of the name could show that the accused was innocent of the offence, disclosure would be made.

■ He said that if undercover officers revealed their real names there was a risk of retribution to themselves and their families when they resumed their true identity after being relocated.

The Court of Appeal comprised the acting president, Mr Justice Cooke, with Mr Justice Richardson, Mr Justice McMullin, Mr Justice Somers and Mr Justice Casey.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19860208.2.163

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, 8 February 1986, Page 31

Word count
Tapeke kupu
379

Call to disclose police identity Press, 8 February 1986, Page 31

Call to disclose police identity Press, 8 February 1986, Page 31

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert