Reserved decision — obtaining by deception — using a document — fraudulent bank loans — improperly-obtained evidence — police statement — police questioning of defendant — Evidence Act 2006, ss 7, 8 & 30 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23 — Police Practice Note, cl 2(b) — R v Perry [2016] NZSC 102 — R v Kumar [2015] NZSC 124, [2016] 1 NZLR 204 — Waipuka v R [2012] NZCA 526 — R v Hughes [2007] NZCA 38, [2007] NZFLR 719 — Lisiate v R [2011] NZCA 170 — Te Moananui v R [2010] NZCA 515 — R v Ormsby CA493/04, 8 April 2005 — R v Falala [2013] NZHC 1737 — R v Mitchell CA160/05, 31 August 2005. The defendant faced 18 charges of obtaining by deception and using a document. She was alleged to have taken control of the complainant's bank account and used it for her everyday spending and to apply for bank loans. The complainant was the defendant's cousin. He had recently arrived in New Zealand, spoke no English and knew little of New Zealand life. The offending was alleged to have continued for several years before the complainant became aware of it. In the current pretrial matter, the defendant challenged the admissibility of her police interview. She submitted that the police officer had continued to ask her questions after she had invoked her right to silence, and also that she had felt pressured to sign a statement in the police officer's notebook. The Court observed that there was no absolute prohibition on police continuing to question a defendant after the defendant asserted a right to silence. The key issue was whether the questioning undermined the defendant's rights. In this case, the Court was satisfied that the defendant had understood her rights and that she had obtained legal advice. The defendant had asserted her right to silence, and had then waived it. The Court found one of the defendant's statements admissible, but ruled out a second statement. The second statement was a response to a question that the police officer had asked about the allegations after the interview was completed, and also the question was confusing. Judgment Date: 6 July 2023