New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Search warrants

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2022

PETERS v DIRECTOR, SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [2022] NZHC 2063

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2063
Court

High Court

For material seized under s 10 SFO Act warrants the only recognised privileges that can be claimed against the Director are legal professional privilege and litigation privilege as preserved by the SFO Act; statutory privileges in the Evidence Act and Search and Surveillance Act (other than legal professional privilege) do not apply to SFO Act s 10 warrants; privilege claims must be particularised on a document-by-document basis consistent with the warrant conditions; parties must follow the directed process for appointing an independent reviewer and agreeing search terms; stage one review co…
11 Aug 2022

BLAKE v THAMES DISTRICT COURT [2022] NZHC 1974

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1974
Court

High Court

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact of general or public importance, could challenge the validity of the search warrants in his criminal trial, would not suffer material prejudice absent a stay, and the established principle that judicial review is rarely the appropriate vehicle to challenge search warrants (Gill) applied.
22 Jun 2022

TAIT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1482

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1482
Court

High Court

The constable did not have a lawful power to search the appellant because the prosecution failed to prove the appellant was "in or on" the place as required by s19 and the warrant mis-stated the scope using "at the place"; s118 detention alone does not authorise a search, therefore the conviction for failing to assist was unsafe and was quashed.
1 Jun 2022

BLAKE v THAMES DISTRICT COURT [2022] NZHC 1235

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1235
Court

High Court

The stay application was dismissed: the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to justify judicial review of search warrants or an interim stay pending that review (following Gill); the District Court is the appropriate forum to test warrant validity and admissibility and judicial review would improperly interfere with criminal process; nine individually named defendants who acted as agents of statutory bodies are to be struck out as unnecessary personal defendants; limited discovery directions were given (disclose issued but unexecuted warrant and application;…
23 May 2019

R (CA89/2018) v R [2019] NZCA 176

Citation

[2019] NZCA 176
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to reopen the appeal was granted because the Crown failed to disclose material information that a Detective connected the seized phone to the internet while in custody, creating a fundamental procedural error and a real risk of miscarriage of justice with no adequate alternative remedy; the appropriate remedy is to rehear the appeal before a fresh panel of the Court of Appeal.
4 Apr 2019

R v MAURICE WILLIAM RETI [2019] NZSC 36

Citation

[2019] NZSC 36
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the question whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence obtained under the specified production order and search warrant; it also issued an interim publication prohibition until the final disposition of the trial.
29 Mar 2017

R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42

Citation

[2017] NZSC 42
Court

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (majority) allowed the Crown appeal and held that the electricity consumption data at issue did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy in the form obtained, so police were entitled to use the data; breach of Privacy Act principles is relevant but not determinative of s30 admissibility; reliance on previously excluded 2010 material did not mandate exclusion of the subsequent evidence in the circumstances, and the evidence obtained from the 19 December 2012 searches is admissible at trial.
19 Dec 2016

FUGLE & ANOR v R [2016] NZCA 619

Citation

[2016] NZCA 619
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 332 permits repeated inspections even after officers have knowledge of offending provided the dominant purpose of each entry is inspection/monitoring of compliance; where the dominant purpose of an entry is collection of evidence for prosecution a s 334 warrant is required; photographs and videos taken incident to lawful s 332 inspections are prima facie admissible.
18 Jul 2016

DEMISSIE TEFERA ASGEDOM V R [2016] NZCA 334

Citation

(2016) 28 CRNZ 70
Court

Court of Appeal

Search warrants were valid and, even if cellphone data seizure raised issues, exclusion under s30 was not proportionate; the Excel spreadsheet was admissible as a voluminous summary and as business records under ss16 and 19 given admissible foundation evidence about how computer systems and fraud detection operated and undue expense in calling overseas cardholders; communications were admissible under the co-conspirator rule; Judge's findings of dishonesty and membership of conspiracy were open on the overwhelming circumstantial and direct evidence; stay and procedural challenges failed; sent…
4 Apr 2016

VAN ESSEN v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND AND OTHERS [2016] NZHC 555

Citation

[2016] NZHC 555
Court

High Court

The Court held that increased costs would have been appropriate for the plaintiffs' conduct (a 2B scale award with a 35% uplift) but that the uplifted figure exceeded actual costs; accordingly, pursuant to s45(5) Legal Services Act 2011 the court specified that, had s45 not affected liability, an order for costs in the amount of $80,053.36 would have been made against the plaintiffs; indemnity costs were refused and no determination was made as to 'exceptional circumstances' under s46(3).