WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2676

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2676

Court admitted the 111 call and Brown's related documents as relevant to what information was available to attending officers; held Sergeant Novata's statements met s 18 threshold reliability and were admissible despite unavailability and lack of signature/date, and s 8 did not require exclusion because probative value and corroboration outweighed risk of unfair prejudice; police jobsheets and Detective Williams' jobsheet were admissible (jobsheets not hearsay where authors are witnesses and Williams' jobsheet qualified as business record under s 19 because it did not fall within the police-record carve-out); Mrs Wright's prosecution brief admissible as she is a witness; plaintiff must...

Citation
[2021] NZHC 2676
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholas David Wright; First Defendant: Attorney-General as representative of the New Zealand Police; Second Defendant: Auckland District Health Board
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (bora) / Pre Trial (evidence Admissibility Hearing)
Outcome
Applications resolved: defendant evidentiary applications largely granted; plaintiff's certain evidential material ordered removed; directions given; costs awarded to first defendant
Legal Topics
Lawful Arrest, Entry to Premises, Trespass, Section 317(2) Crimes Act 1961, Doctrine of Necessity, Hearsay (evidence Act 2006), Section 18 Evidence Act 2006 (unavailable Witness), Section 8 Evidence Act 2006 (unfair Prejudice), Business Records (s19), New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Evidence Police Powers Human Rights Civil Procedure Criminal Law Lawful Arrest Entry to Premises Trespass +7 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas David Wright

Plaintiff

Attorney-General as representative of the New Zealand Police

First Defendant

Auckland District Health Board

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (bora) / Pre Trial (evidence Admissibility Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police entry to dwelling on 22 Nov 2009 was lawful under invitation, s 317(2) Crimes Act 1961 or the doctrine of necessity
  2. 2 Whether police had good cause to suspect trespass on 25 Mar 2012 and whether occupier/agent had asked plaintiff to leave
  3. 3 Admissibility of 111 call recording and transcript and Brown's brief

Ratio Decidendi

Court admitted the 111 call and Brown's related documents as relevant to what information was available to attending officers; held Sergeant Novata's statements met s 18 threshold reliability and were admissible despite unavailability and lack of signature/date, and s 8 did not require exclusion because probative value and corroboration outweighed risk of unfair prejudice; police jobsheets and Detective Williams' jobsheet were admissible (jobsheets not hearsay where authors are witnesses and Williams' jobsheet qualified as business record under s 19 because it did not fall within the police-record carve-out); Mrs Wright's prosecution brief admissible as she is a witness; plaintiff must...

Court Disposition

Applications resolved: defendant evidentiary applications largely granted; plaintiff's certain evidential material ordered removed; directions given; costs awarded to first defendant

Orders

  • Admit recording and transcript of 111 call and Annette Brown's brief into evidence as relevant to information available to attending officers
  • Admit Sergeant Novata's handwritten notebook entries and brief of evidence under Evidence Act 2006 s 18 (unavailable witness)