New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Police powers

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2023

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v B (Reasons for take-down and suppression orders) [2023] NZHC 2824

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2824
Court

High Court

Given police evidence of hacked confidential client files publicly accessible on an offshore Channel, the lack of effective alternative remedies, the platform's non‑cooperation, the respondent's refusal to remove the material, and the imminent risk of further harm, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant ex parte targeted take‑down orders (limited to offending confidential information) and suppression of identifying particulars to protect fair trial and investigative interests; supplementary orders to restrict administrative access and public access were also justified to…
9 Mar 2023

FULLER v CARTER [2023] NZHC 448

Citation

[2023] NZHC 448
Court

High Court

The claim is not an abuse of process and is sufficiently intelligible and particularised to require factual exploration at trial; consequently the stay is lifted and the statement of claim is accepted for filing and service, but parts of the claim based on District Court affidavits that advance 'sovereign citizen' arguments disclose no cause of action and are struck out, and the Community Magistrate named should be removed from the intituling.
2 Jul 2014

KIM DOTCOM v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1505

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1505
Court

High Court

The Court directed that encryption codes provided by the plaintiffs must remain confidential to nominated New Zealand Police officers, must not be disclosed to any other party including any representative of the United States, and must not be stored or transmitted electronically; this construction best implements the onshore sorting and MACMA objectives and allows Police to inspect decrypted material in New Zealand (with possible FBI assistance in New Zealand) without delivering encrypted access to US authorities.
19 Jun 2014

KIM v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZHC 1383

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1383
Court

High Court

Judicial review dismissed in all respects except that the police acted unlawfully in photographing and fingerprinting Mr Kim after arrest on a provisional arrest warrant because the Extradition Act and related statutory scheme did not authorize taking identifying particulars at that stage; substantive rights (death penalty, torture, fair trial) are to be assessed by the Minister at the surrender stage and were prematurely raised before the Minister's s30 decision.
19 Dec 2008

ZAYR V CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC AK CIV 2008-404-008312

Citation

openlaw-84167bad_0daf_4533_a6ec_fb15836d0668.pdf
Court

High Court

The interim application was dismissed because the statutory power in s59 authorised arrest and detention to execute a removal order, the applicant had been offered and rejected voluntary departure, there was no sufficient arguable unlawfulness to justify interim relief, and any purported error was technical or academic; accordingly the removal order remained valid and enforceable.
5 Dec 2008

CASEY V R SC 66/2008

Citation

SC 66/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The Court upheld the Court of Appeal: s114 does not require the stopping officer to be the one who performs breath tests when another officer is requested to attend; directing the applicant to wait did not constitute unlawful detention; and the officer's unchallenged evidence that the screening followed the stipulated procedure meant there was no arguable ground that the screening result was inadmissible, so leave to appeal was refused.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v B (Reasons for take-down and suppression orders) [2023] NZHC 2824

FULLER v CARTER [2023] NZHC 448

KIM DOTCOM v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1505

KIM v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZHC 1383

ZAYR V CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC AK CIV 2008-404-008312

CASEY V R SC 66/2008