Key Takeaways
- Police first became aware of illicit material after tracing objectionable images to a Wi‑Fi address linked to Granich’s home in early 2021.
- During questioning, Granich denied uploading child sexual abuse content and blamed his brother‑in‑law, Ezekiel Lowe, for placing the files on his devices.
- A search of Granich’s Oppo phone in December 2021 revealed an SD card containing 20 pornographic images, 17 of which were classified as objectionable, including videos of children as young as four.
- Digital forensic analyst Jung Lee testified that roughly 200 files were bulk‑uploaded to the SD card on 14 April 2021, but the card’s metadata showed no search history, no proof which device created the screenshots, and no way to determine when or where the card was used.
- The Crown argued Granich had knowledge and control of the files because the card also held his personal data and a QR code indicating ongoing possession, while the defence stressed the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the possibility that others accessed the card.
- Judge Peter Davey has reserved his decision, with a ruling expected in June, after a lengthy pre‑trial process that began when Granich was charged in 2022.
Background and Initial Police Alert
In early 2021, investigators received a tip that objectionable images were being shared on websites from a Wi‑Fi address associated with Granich’s property in Maungatapere, Whangārei. The address led police to focus on Granich as a possible source of the material. This initial alert set the investigation in motion, prompting detectives to examine the digital footprint linked to the household’s internet connection. The tip was significant because it connected the alleged offending content directly to a location under Granich’s control, even though it did not immediately prove who had accessed or uploaded the files.
Interview with Detective Soper and Granich’s Statements
Detective Richard Soper brought Granich into the police station for questioning and asked who had access to his phone in 2018. Granich maintained that he possessed the phone but acknowledged that others, including his brother‑in‑law Ezekiel Lowe, used the same Wi‑Fi address. He claimed he had not visited chatrooms or dating sites since 2014, though he admitted to previously sending “d*** pics” to women he met on the Zeuss platform, describing his past behaviour as “young and dumb.” When shown an image of a four‑year‑old girl performing a sexual act that had been uploaded to the live‑streaming site Kick in 2018 and linked to his email address, Granich denied uploading it, insisting the email belonged to him but that he never held a Kick account with that address. He suggested Lowe—whom he referred to as a “dropkick”—was responsible for placing the images on Kick.
Seizure of Devices and Discovery of the SD Card
Following the unsatisfactory interview, police obtained a search warrant. In December 2021, officers arrived at Granich’s address and found him holding an Oppo cellphone. The phone, along with several other devices, was seized for forensic examination. Inside the Oppo phone, investigators located an SD card that held 20 pornographic images, 17 of which were deemed objectionable under New Zealand law. The card also contained videos, screenshots, and images of children as young as four engaged in sexual acts with adults, including a 42‑second clip. Notably, the SD card also stored selfies of Granich masturbating and engaging in other sexual acts with himself, which the Crown later highlighted as evidence of his familiarity with the card’s contents.
Forensic Analysis by Jung Lee
Digital forensic analyst Jung Lee presented detailed findings about the SD card’s usage. Lee testified that around 200 files had been bulk‑uploaded to the card on 14 April 2021, with a creation date matching that day. Between that upload date and the phone’s seizure in December 2021, the files had been deleted. One file contained a screenshot of a video showing a volume bar that corresponded to the model of Oppo phone Granich possessed, yet Lee emphasized there was no way to confirm that screenshot originated from that exact device. The analyst also noted the absence of metadata indicating any search history, media player activity, or other usage logs on the phones that could tie the SD card to a specific user. When defence counsel asked whether it was possible to determine which device had used the SD card or when it had been inserted into the Oppo, Lee repeatedly answered “no,” conceding that the data could have been uploaded onto the card before it was ever placed in the phone and that the card had likely moved across multiple handsets.
Crown’s Closing Arguments
Prosecutor Danette Cole asserted that the Crown did not need to prove Granich had viewed the files; rather, it had to show he possessed knowledge of them, thereby exercising control. Cole pointed out that the SD card contained Granich’s personal data, business pages, and a QR code created on 5 May 2021 that demonstrated ongoing possession of the card. She argued that the presence of Granich’s own sexual selfies on the card, uploaded on 15 April 2021, contradicted the defence’s claim that he had no connection to the material after 14 April. Cole maintained that the circumstantial evidence, taken together, established beyond reasonable doubt that Granich was aware of and responsible for the illicit files.
Defence’s Closing Arguments
Defence lawyer Mathew Ridgley countered that the Crown’s case rested solely on circumstantial evidence and failed to meet the high burden of proof required for a criminal conviction. Ridgley highlighted the forensic testimony that the SD card had been used in multiple phones—including a Huawei and a Samsung—before ending up in Granich’s Oppo device, suggesting other individuals could have placed the objectionable content on the card. He underscored that Granich only admitted to having custody of the SD card on 10 December 2021, the day the phone was seized, and there was no reliable evidence linking him to the creation, upload, or viewing of the child sexual abuse material. Ridgley repeatedly questioned whether the Crown could prove Granich engaged in the material at all, arguing that the lack of direct metadata or eyewitness testimony left reasonable doubt.
Judicial Process and Timeline
Granich was formally charged in 2022, but the case endured more than four years of pre‑trials, application hearings, and procedural delays before reaching a judge‑alone trial. The lengthy timeline reflects the complexity of digital evidence cases, where forensic analysis, disclosure disputes, and legal arguments over admissibility can extend proceedings significantly. At the recent judge‑alone trial, both the Crown and defence presented their closing submissions, after which Judge Peter Davey reserved his decision, indicating he would deliver a verdict in June. The reserve underscores the judge’s careful consideration of the conflicting forensic interpretations and the competing narratives about who controlled the SD card.
Reporter’s Note
Shannon Pitman, a Whangārei‑based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region, authored the article. Of Ngāpuhi/Ngāti Pūkenga descent, Pitman has worked in digital media for the past five years and joined NZME in 2023. Her reporting focuses on delivering clear, accurate accounts of judicial proceedings, particularly those involving complex technological evidence.