WHEKI v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZHC 412

WHEKI v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZHC 412

The High Court confirmed the District Court: MSD did not apply an unlawful blanket policy, investigators had reasonable grounds to invoke the Code's 'prejudice to the maintenance of the law' exception in the particular circumstances, the s11 evidence was not improperly obtained and, even if improperly obtained,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 412
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Jacqueline Gaye Wheki; Respondent/prosecution: Ministry of Social Development
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / First Appeal Pre Trial Admissibility
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Improperly Obtained Evidence, Section 11 Social Security Act Powers, Evidence Act S30 Balancing, Code of Conduct S11 B Prejudice Exception, Benefit Fraud
Criminal Law Evidence Social Security Law Privacy Law Administrative Law Improperly Obtained Evidence Section 11 Social Security Act Powers Evidence Act S30 Balancing +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Jacqueline Gaye Wheki

Appellant/defendant

Ministry of Social Development

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / First Appeal Pre Trial Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MSD lawfully exercised s11 Social Security Act powers and complied with the Code of Conduct
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained from third parties by s11 was improperly obtained or unfair
  3. 3 If improperly obtained, whether exclusion is proportionate under Evidence Act 2006 s30(2)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court confirmed the District Court: MSD did not apply an unlawful blanket policy, investigators had reasonable grounds to invoke the Code's 'prejudice to the maintenance of the law' exception in the particular circumstances, the s11 evidence was not improperly obtained and, even if improperly obtained, exclusion was not proportionate under Evidence Act s30(2)(b) because intrusion was limited, conduct was not in bad faith, the evidence was reliable and the offending was of sufficient seriousness to favour admission.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed