New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nzbora s21

Legal area

Court

24 Sept 2020

COOPER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2514

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2514
Court

High Court

Although the vehicle search under s20 was unlawful (officer failed to form an objectively credible belief it was not practicable to obtain a warrant), exclusion of the methamphetamine pipe evidence was disproportionate under Evidence Act s30 because the officer acted in good faith, there was moderate urgency and available lawful powers to seize the item in plain view; however the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons on the possession finding for the pipe and that conviction was set aside for lack of adequate reasoning, and the conviction for possession of a knife was overturned beca…
19 Sept 2019

SMITH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2371

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2371
Court

High Court

The appellate court held the s18 firearms warrantless search, although meeting the textual elements of s18, was unreasonable because there was no urgency and a s6 search warrant was practicable given the information and time available; nevertheless, balancing under s30 favoured admitting the firearms evidence in the public safety context; the s20 drugs search was unlawful and unreasonable because police did not consider practicability of a warrant nor the likelihood evidential material would be compromised, so cannabis evidence is excluded under s30.
28 Oct 2016

W v R [2016] NZHC 2579

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2579
Court

High Court

Initial access by an IT technician to a removable SD card fitted into a found tablet, undertaken by Police acting as sub-bailees to identify the owner, was a reasonable search; later warrantless access by investigators (Detective Shields and Senior Constable Parfitt) was an unreasonable search, but on balancing under s30 Evidence Act the impropriety was at the lower end, Police acted in good faith and exclusion would be disproportionate given the importance and centrality of the evidence, so the challenged images are admissible; appeal dismissed.
24 Feb 2015

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V VAN ESSEN & ORS CA320/2013 [2015] NZCA 22

Citation

(2015) 10 HRNZ 155
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court erred in awarding $10,000 public law damages to Van Essen and in awarding indemnity costs to the investigators and to the claimants beyond the commencement of trial. The searches were unlawful due to flaws in the warrants but did not amount to bad faith; remedial action (internal review and IPCA) and lack of evidence of actual exposure of intimate material meant declarations (not monetary compensation) were adequate for Patterson and, on balance, for Van Essen. Investigators are protected from tortious liability by s27 Crimes Act but statutory immunity does not i…
5 Dec 2012

DOTCOM V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2012-404-001928

Citation

openlaw-68244d54_119b_4823_b8b1_6384e84d1a83.pdf
Court

High Court

The GCSB's activities were part of the same factual narrative as the challenged Police search; joining the GCSB and permitting amendment was necessary and proportionate to allow the Court to determine all issues efficiently. Discovery of specified GCSB and Police materials is appropriate subject to identified confidentiality procedures and inspection by the Court where relevance is in doubt; sensitive material may be protected but must be clearly identified so the established in‑camera and amicus procedures can apply.
2 Apr 2012

FORREST V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL COA CA785/2010

Citation

COA CA785/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

The second strip search was unlawful because officers did not consider or establish the statutory necessity required by Corrections Act s98(5) (no reasonable grounds of an unauthorised item and no assessment of less intrusive options) and therefore breached s21 NZBORA; because a declaration alone would not provide effective redress given two unlawful searches in one day and the s14 factors, compensation was appropriate under the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act, and $600 was awarded.
2 Dec 2011

BD FORREST V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV-2011-409-1233

Citation

openlaw-ffb24ad6_23da_4f73_b7de_a5ef36861903.pdf
Court

High Court

Associate Judge has jurisdiction to consider the strike-out application in proceedings seeking declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act; the defendant's strike-out application failed because the plaintiff's delay was not so clearly prejudicial or inexcusable as to warrant striking out and declarations are distinct from monetary claims; however, on balance security for costs under r 5.45 was just because the plaintiff is impecunious, has limited prospects and a prior similar declaration reduced the practical utility of another declaration, so security of NZD 10,000 ordered in two…

New Zealand Case Law

COOPER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2514

SMITH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2371

W v R [2016] NZHC 2579

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V VAN ESSEN & ORS CA320/2013 [2015] NZCA 22

DOTCOM V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2012-404-001928

FORREST V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL COA CA785/2010

BD FORREST V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV-2011-409-1233