Kid-porn charges stick on 2nd try

It was a case of second time lucky for Whangarei police when a man was convicted of possessing more than 40,000 child-porn images after similar charges against him were earlier thrown out.
David Glen Tavernor has been found guilty by Judge Simon Maud of 18 charges of possessing objectionable material - more than 40,000 images of children, including some naked or in their underwear.
Tavernor had challenged the warrant police used to search the house he was boarding at, but Judge Maud ruled the evidence gathered  was admissible and the charges against him proven.
The judge said that, even if the search was illegal, he would have allowed the evidence anyway, partly due to the seriousness of the offences.
Tavernor was on bail on a raft of counts involving possessing objectionable material  when police went to the house on May 22, 2008, after he had failed to make a bail check at Whangarei Police Station.
The child-porn charges he was on bail for at the time were later dismissed after the objectionable material relied  on for that prosecution was deemed inadmissible.
Tavernor sought to have the objectionable material recovered from a computer in his room on May 22, last year, ruled inadmissible as well, saying  the search and seizure were not legal.
On May 22 last year a constable went to Tavernor's home and, after smelling cannabis on his breath and in the house, executed a search under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The officer said Tavernor had admitted smoking drugs, invited him inside the house and showed him a canister that contained cannabis ash. Tavernor disputed that, saying he did not give permission for the search, nor  had he invited the officer into the house, given police permission  to look at the computer or search the house. Tavernor said the officer had pushed past him to get into the house and had had no cause to believe there could be cannabis on the premises.
The  officer had then called his supervising sergeant at the station, who had informed him  Tavernor's bail conditions included that he not have access to a computer. A working computer  had been found in Tavernor's bedroom with the screen hidden under  bed covers.
Hundreds of DVDS were also in his room and a later search of the disks, computer and thumb drives found more than 40,000 objectionable images, including pictures of girls  8 years old partly naked or naked in explicit poses.
Judge Maud said he believed the word of the officers over Tavernor's and that the evidence had been properly gathered, so was admissible.
Judge Maud said that, even if he was wrong, he would have exercised his discretion under Section 30 of the Evidence Act to allow the evidence.
That  was because the intrusion  on Tavernor's rights  was not serious; the impropriety was not deliberate, reckless or in bad faith; the evidence had already been classified as objectionable; and the offences were serious, involving up to five years' jail  or a $50,000 fine.
Tavernor has been remanded in custody for sentencing on October 9.