Blake v Thames District Council - [2022] NZCA 557

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA456/2022
[2022] NZCA 557

BETWEEN	ROGER WILLIAM BLAKE Applicant
AND	THAMES DISTRICT COUNCIL First Respondent NEW ZEALAND POLICE COMMISSIONER Second Respondent MEDSAFE Third Respondent

Court:	Gilbert and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person B M McKenna for First Respondent C K Whyte for Second and Third Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	17 November 2022 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
BThe applicant must pay the second and third respondents one set of costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

On 1 June 2022 the High Court dismissed “Roger-William’s” application for stay of criminal proceedings pending judicial review of related search warrants.[1] The High Court subsequently declined leave to appeal its decision.[2] Roger-William now seeks leave from this Court pursuant to s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
[1]Blake v Thames District Court [2022] NZHC 1235 [Stay decision]. To “avoid consternation” the High Court referred to the applicant as Roger-William instead of Mr Blake.
[2]Blake v Thames District Court [2022] NZHC 1974 [Leave decision].
Roger‑William, who calls himself a “living man, roger-william, house of blake”,[3] represents himself in this application.
[3]Stay decision, above n 1, at [2].
The first respondent, Thames District Court, abides this Court’s decision. The application is opposed by the second and third respondents, the Commissioner of Police and Medsafe. Submissions were filed jointly for them.

Background

In July 2020 police applied for warrants to search two premises associated with Roger-William and NZ Water Purifier Ltd, a company of which Roger-William was a director. The applications concerned alleged offending under ss 20 and 43 of the Medicines Act 1981. Those provisions prohibit the sale, distribution and advertisement of new medicines without consent; and the possession of prescription medicines without reasonable excuse. The Thames District Court issued those warrants and they were executed on 15 July 2020. Charges against Roger-William and NZ Water Purifier followed in December 2020.
In April 2021 Roger-William commenced judicial review proceedings against police, Medsafe, the Thames District Court and nine other named defendants regarding the legality of the warrants. Based on his amended statement of claim filed in June 2021, Roger-William alleges the District Court’s issuance of the warrants, the police’s decision to apply for them, and Medsafe’s decision to “initiate and/or proceed” with the application for them, were unlawful. He says there were no reasonable grounds to suspect a relevant offence had or would have been committed. The searches were merely “fishing expedition[s]”, and various of his rights were breached in the process.
In February 2022 Roger-William filed an application in the High Court under s 15 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 to stay the charges pending determination of the judicial review proceedings. It was that application the High Court declined on 1 June 2022, and which Roger-William now…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Blake v Thames District Council

Details

AGLC: Blake v Thames District Council [2022] NZCA 557
Case: [2022] NZCA 557
Decision Date: 17 November 2022 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Roger William Blake against the Thames District Council, the New Zealand Police Commissioner, and Medsafe. Blake sought leave to appeal the High Court's decision to deny his application for a stay of criminal proceedings pending a judicial review of related search warrants. The High Court had previously dismissed Blake's application for a stay and denied his leave to appeal. In this appeal, Blake argued that the High Court erred in its decision and requested leave to appeal the matter to the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court's decision to deny Blake leave to appeal its decision to dismiss his application for a stay of criminal proceedings was correct. The Court needed to determine if the High Court had erred in its decision and whether the interests of justice would be served by granting Blake leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court did not err in its decision to deny Blake leave to appeal. The Court found that the High Court's decision was in line with the precedent set by Gill v Attorney-General, which established that judicial review is not the appropriate means to challenge the issuance, validity, or execution of a search warrant. The Court also held that judicial review is generally not the appropriate forum to challenge a search warrant, and such challenges should be dealt with in the criminal proceedings by the District Court. The Court of Appeal further held that the High Court's decision to deny leave to appeal was not an arguable error of law or fact and was not of sufficient importance to warrant further delay. The Court of Appeal declined Blake's application for leave to appeal and ordered him to pay the second and third respondents one set of costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

Orders