19 Aug 2009
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES V THE DISTRICT COURT AT NAPIER AND ORS HC NAP CIV 2009-441-270
- Citation
- openlaw-7d3bb564_6867_4f71_a06e_11112d365b61.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Breach of s207(4) does not automatically or near-automatically require a stay; a stay is discretionary and exceptional and will ordinarily require both unreasonable delay and prejudice to the defendant connected to the seizure that cannot be adequately remedied by other means; return of property under bond and absence of prejudice are relevant considerations; District Court's automatic-stay approach following Grigson was an error and the stay is quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
- Seizure and retention of property
- Statutory duty to decide to prosecute as soon as reasonably practicable
- Stay of proceedings for prosecutorial delay
- Judicial review of prosecutorial decisions
- Remedies for unlawful seizure
- Nzbora s21 and s25(b) issues