Home Contact Us

We are the only NZ Police oversight body

We are not part of the NZ Police

Under law we are fully independent

If you have a complaint about the NZ Police, you can come to us

Whaia te pono, kia puawai ko te tika

Seek the truth, that justice may prevail

Christopher Kahui trial

30 April 2010

In response to the release of correspondence relating to a complaint regarding Christopher Kahui.

The correspondence released by the complainant related to the discovery and disclosure of documentation by Police prior to Mr Kahui’s trial for murder. Mr Kahui was found not guilty of the murder of his twins, Chris and Cru, on 22 May 2008.

There is no evidence that the police officers responsible for the preparation of the Crown case and disclosure conspired or otherwise deliberately tried to pervert the course of justice by disclosing incomplete information relevant to Mr Kahui’s defence; or by making late disclosure.

However in relation to the disclosure process, the Authority’s findings are as follows:

Complaint 1

1. The omission of the date column from the spreadsheet showing phone calls from Emily King’s mobile phone was inadvertent.

2. The conversation between Emily King and a Police officer about the Mangere cell site call, on 1 March 2007, should have been documented and disclosed.

3. At the very least the fact that this conversation had occurred and any related documentation, should have been disclosed to the defence soon after 1 March 2007.

4. The failure of Police to document this conversation and to complete disclosure is not in accordance with the standard of policing expected in such a significant and high profile murder investigation.

5. There is however no evidence that the decisions of Police relating to Emily King’s evidence were intended to deliberately deceive the defence.

Complaint 2

6. Disclosure of the evidence of Eruera Tuari, alleging that Macsyna King had told him “Chris didn’t do it” and “I did it”, should have been made to the defence prior to February 2008, whether or not the intended associated enquiries had been completed.

7. The evidence provided by Mr Tuari, effectively of an admission by Macsyna, was always going to be relevant to the defence case. Whatever the Police view of the credibility of Mr Tuari, the credibility of witnesses is a jury issue.

8. The Authority accepts that the Police officers involved were working under considerable pressure towards the end of 2007. Notwithstanding Police should have disclosed Mr Tuari’s evidence in a timely way and certainly much earlier than February 2008. The late disclosure put the defence under unreasonable pressure, and constituted an error of judgement on the part of the officers concerned.

MoST Content Management V3.0.6757