The Criminal Cases Review Commission (Te Kāhui Tātari Ture) has called for tightening of the laws around eyewitness identification evidence, in a report tabled in Parliament and sent to Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith.

The Commission's report makes three recommendations and proposes changes to the Evidence Act 2006 to make eyewitness evidence more reliable. The proposed changes would update New Zealand's legislation to reflect developments in scientific research and international best practice.

Chief Commissioner Denis Clifford led the inquiry, the Commission's first into a systemic issue, conducted under Section 12 of its governing legislation. That provision allows the Commission to investigate issues that extend beyond individual cases.

The scale of the problem is visible in the Commission's own caseload. Nearly one-fifth of applications for review received during the Commission's first five years raised issues relating to eyewitness identification. When the Commission formally launched its inquiry on 13 March 2024, two of the three cases it had referred back to the courts involved problematic eyewitness evidence.

Problems with identification evidence have featured in some of New Zealand's most prominent wrongful conviction cases, including those of Teina Pora, Alan Hall, and Gail Maney. The Commission also cited George Moulden and David Dougherty as high-profile cases involving eyewitness identification evidence.

The Commission flagged identification evidence as an area of concern as early as 2022. In early 2023, it prepared a paper titled "Eyewitness identification evidence in Aotearoa" summarising its experience and identifying issues for further examination. The formal inquiry followed in March 2024, with updated terms of reference published in December 2025. An expert panel was appointed to provide advice during the inquiry.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission was established on 1 July 2020, modelled on the UK Criminal Cases Review Commission. It exists as an independent body to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice and refer cases back to the courts where warranted.

Visual identification evidence, as the Commission's materials note, is defined in section 4 of the Evidence Act 2006. The inquiry assessed whether New Zealand is currently achieving best practice relating to the collection of such evidence.

The report now sits with Goldsmith as Minister responsible for the justice portfolio. The three recommendations will require legislative action through Parliament to take effect.

The broader context here is that eyewitness identification has been a recognised weakness in criminal justice systems for decades. The psychological research literature on the unreliability of human memory in identification scenarios is substantial, and jurisdictions including England and Wales, Canada, and parts of Australia have reformed their evidential rules in response. New Zealand's Evidence Act 2006, while it contains provisions governing identification evidence, has not been subject to a systemic review of this kind by a body with the Commission's operational experience of wrongful conviction cases.

For practitioners in the criminal justice sector, the Commission's findings carry particular weight because they are grounded in real case files rather than theoretical critique. The one-in-five figure from its application base gives a concrete sense of how often identification issues surface in post-conviction review — a signal that the problem is not confined to a handful of historical miscarriages but continues to generate grounds for review in current casework.

Whether the Government acts on the three recommendations is a matter for the Minister and the Cabinet. The Commission's role concludes with the report; it has no power to compel legislative change. But the tabling in Parliament means the findings are now part of the public record and can be drawn on by select committees, opposition MPs, and the legal profession in any future review of evidence law.

The Commission has published information about its systemic inquiry at ccrc.nz/news/systemic and maintains an information page at ccrc.nz/information/inquiry-into-eyewitness-identification-evidence.