New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Search warrant

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2023

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v AFATO [2023] NZHC 2175

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2175
Court

High Court

On the totality of the evidence (commercial‑scale cannabis cultivation, communications about sales and seed importation, unexplained cash deposits and payments towards the Mill Street property) the Court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the Mill Street property was tainted property and that there was a real risk it would be dealt with if notice were given; accordingly a without‑notice restraining order under the CPRA was warranted.
10 Dec 2020

TE IWI NGARO RAMEKA v R [2020] NZSC 140

Citation

[2020] NZSC 140
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the application to obtain an unredacted search warrant was a routine Access Rules matter that did not raise questions of general or public importance and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice; the reasons that supported prior redaction under the Criminal Disclosure Act continued to provide a proper basis to decline the request.
16 Oct 2020

FIELDING v POLICE [2020] NZHC 2728

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2728
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the judicial review application: the pre-charge warning and harassment notice were lawful exercises of prosecutorial discretion supported by CCTV and complainant material and consistent with precedent on 'enclosed' yards; the search warrant was valid and not vitiated by any material omission or false declaration and did not disclose a jurisdictional defect; issues about seized devices and privilege do not justify return in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation and cloning under the Search and Surveillance Act is available.
16 Jun 2020

X v R [2020] NZHC 1345

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1345
Court

High Court

Although the Court accepted publication of X's name posed a real or appreciable risk of undue hardship, the balance of competing interests favored publication: the seriousness and organized nature of the defendants' methamphetamine importation, the public interest in understanding the defendants' modus operandi and in scrutiny of the Police charging decision and adequacy of investigation (including an unexecuted search warrant and timing questions), and the fundamental principle of open justice outweighed X's hardship claim; the Crown's concession abandoning the specific Sese/X1 implication d…
5 Mar 2020

R v MAURICE WILLIAM JOHN RETI [2020] NZSC 16

Citation

[2020] NZSC 16
Court

Supreme Court

The production order was invalid due to material non-disclosure of information that would likely have affected the issuing officer's decision; the search warrant was causally tainted by that invalid production order; on s 30 balancing the seriousness and unfairness of the impropriety and the privacy invasion (including an unlawful home search) outweigh the public interest in admission, so exclusion of the evidence is proportionate; Crown appeal dismissed.
5 Jun 2019

HOGG v R [2019] NZHC 1254

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1254
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Facebook Messenger communications were lawfully obtained under a warrant that authorised searching electronic devices capable of storing photos, and the preliminary inspection of Messenger to locate possible images did not exceed the warrant's scope; alternatively the evidence would not be excluded under s30. The court further held the charged messages were objectively indecent under s124A on their plain meaning and upheld the conviction.
3 Sept 2018

R (CA89/2018) v R [2018] NZCA 341

Citation

[2018] NZCA 341
Court

Court of Appeal

The warrant lawfully authorised seizure and retention of the phone and authorised later examinations; synchronised data present on the phone before seizure was properly within the scope of the warrant; police handling and the inadvertent creation of cookies or a synchronisation event did not establish that the data was rendered unreliable on the material before the Court; the defence did not challenge admissibility pre-trial and the evidence was probative and not unfairly prejudicial, therefore the convictions stand.
21 May 2018

NICOLAS ALFRED HAGER v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 1138

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1138
Court

High Court

Applying the s 69 Evidence Act 2006 criteria and following the approach taken by Dobson J, the Court concluded that disclosure would likely cause significant harm by identifying suspects/persons of interest, revealing confidential sources or investigative methods; accordingly the Court directed that documents listed in Part 3 remain confidential in whole and those in Part 4 remain confidential in part, while noting some documents are irrelevant or have already been disclosed.
20 Dec 2017

CULLEN v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & ANOR [2017] NZHC 3241

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3241
Court

High Court

The judicial review was not the appropriate vehicle to invalidate the warrant and the Deputy Registrar did not act improperly; the Deputy Registrar was justified in not filing an affidavit and privilege under s56 applied; costs follow the event subject to judicial discretion and reductions for reasonable cause and excessive claims, resulting in an assessed costs award reduced by 15% to $9,856.60.
7 Dec 2016

LE GROS v R [2016] NZCA 586

Citation

[2016] NZCA 586
Court

Court of Appeal

The cumulative material in the warrant application — concordant witness descriptions, timing and vehicle evidence, photo montage selection, the defendant's vehicle ownership and occupation as a second‑hand dealer, and the match between items of interest and stolen property — provided reasonable grounds to believe stolen property would be at the defendant's residence, so the s6 warrant was lawfully issued and the appeal on that ground fails.