SIEMER & ORS v BROWN & ORS [2014] NZHC 3175

SIEMER & ORS v BROWN & ORS [2014] NZHC 3175

The warrant application provided sufficient particularised grounds and justified a search; the issued warrant (Exhibit C) was valid and dated notwithstanding defects in the occupier copy which resulted from a template/clerical error; the warrant was not a general warrant; no bad faith was shown; the execution of the warrant was reasonable overall and within scope so tort claims and NZBoRA ss 21-23 claims fail; statutory and Crown immunities would apply where relevant; all plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 3175
Parties
First Plaintiff: V.R. Siemer; First Plaintiff: J.D. Siemer; Second Plaintiff: Spartan News Limited; Third Plaintiff: S. Siemer; First Defendant: K.S. Brown; Second Defendant: M. Palma; Third Defendant: A. Lovelock; Fourth Defendant: Jane Thew; Fifth Defendant: Reece Sirl; Sixth Defendant: Julie Foster; Seventh Defendant: John Miller; Eighth Defendant: David Thomas; Ninth Defendant: Brett Otton; Tenth Defendant: Trevor Franklin; Eleventh Defendant: John Taylor; Twelfth Defendant: Juergen Arndt; Thirteenth Defendant: Kerwin Stewart; Fourteenth Defendant: The Attorney-General of New Zealand; Fifteenth Defendant (deputy Registrar): B.J. Reid
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil – Search Warrant Challenge and Tort/nzbo RA Damages Claim Under Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 / Final Judgment at Trial (judgment Delivered)
Outcome
All plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for defendants
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Trespass to Land and Goods, Conversion and Detention of Property, False Imprisonment, Privacy Intrusion, Vicarious Liability, Statutory Immunities, NZ Bill of Rights Act Ss 21 23
Criminal Procedure Tort Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Rights Search Warrants Unreasonable Search and Seizure Trespass to Land and Goods +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V.R. Siemer

First Plaintiff

J.D. Siemer

First Plaintiff

Spartan News Limited

Second Plaintiff

S. Siemer

Third Plaintiff

K.S. Brown

First Defendant

M. Palma

Second Defendant

A. Lovelock

Third Defendant

Jane Thew

Fourth Defendant

Reece Sirl

Fifth Defendant

Julie Foster

Sixth Defendant

John Miller

Seventh Defendant

David Thomas

Eighth Defendant

Brett Otton

Ninth Defendant

Trevor Franklin

Tenth Defendant

John Taylor

Eleventh Defendant

Juergen Arndt

Twelfth Defendant

Kerwin Stewart

Thirteenth Defendant

The Attorney-General of New Zealand

Fourteenth Defendant

B.J. Reid

Fifteenth Defendant (deputy Registrar)

Procedural Posture

Civil – Search Warrant Challenge and Tort/nzbo RA Damages Claim Under Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 / Final Judgment at Trial (judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant application contained sufficient information
  2. 2 Whether the warrant disclosed its date and was valid despite discrepancies in occupier copy
  3. 3 Whether the warrant was a prohibited general warrant for lack of specificity

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant application provided sufficient particularised grounds and justified a search; the issued warrant (Exhibit C) was valid and dated notwithstanding defects in the occupier copy which resulted from a template/clerical error; the warrant was not a general warrant; no bad faith was shown; the execution of the warrant was reasonable overall and within scope so tort claims and NZBoRA ss 21-23 claims fail; statutory and Crown immunities would apply where relevant; all plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

Court Disposition

All plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for defendants

Orders

  • All plaintiffs' claims dismissed against all defendants
  • Defendants entitled to costs; defendants to file memoranda as to costs by 20 February 2015 and plaintiffs to file reply by 27 March 2015, costs to be determined on the papers unless the Court directs otherwise