New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Battery

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2016

WRIGHT v BHOSALE [2016] NZCA 593

Citation

[2016] NZCA 593
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court: the officer acted under a mistaken belief rather than bad faith or subjective recklessness; s 23(2) is a temporal right and does not impose a mandatory pre-charge supervisory legislative check; s 24(a) was breached at the police station but remedied when the prosecutor disclosed s 113 with the caption summary on 9 May 2013; the officer had no lawful authority to direct identification under the circumstances but the issue of mere 'asking' need not be decided; any intrusion did not amount to an unreasonable search for which additional remedy was required; exempl…
15 Aug 2006

HARRIS V DAVIES HC MAS CIV-2003-435-21

Citation

openlaw-2c616e58_8ae5_4638_92de_01b417f2123b.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Court found on the balance of probabilities that battery occurred, exemplary damages were declined because the plaintiff refused to cooperate with criminal proceedings (failed to give evidence at depositions despite arrest and attendance), thereby frustrating the criminal process and making criminal justice the appropriate forum for punishment and condemnation; accordingly an award of exemplary damages would be inappropriate.
3 Aug 2006

VAIHU V A-G POLICE HC AK CIV 2005-404-002096

Citation

openlaw-dc055672_d8fe_4c2f_a016_927775e090e3.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because there is an arguable and publicly important question whether a police dog’s actions can be juridically separated from its handler such that lack of handler intent should preclude liability under s 9, and whether Ellen France J placed undue emphasis on intention rather than on training, handling, negligence or recklessness; the issue merits determination by the Court of Appeal.

New Zealand Case Law

WRIGHT v BHOSALE [2016] NZCA 593

HARRIS V DAVIES HC MAS CIV-2003-435-21

VAIHU V A-G POLICE HC AK CIV 2005-404-002096