Blake v Thames District Court - [2022] NZHC 1235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2021-419-000068 [2022] NZHC 1235

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

ROGER WILLIAM BLAKE (AKA LIVING MAN: ROGER-WILLIAM: HOUSE OF

BLAKE)

Applicant

AND

THAMES DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS

Second Respondents

MEDSAFE AND ORS

Third Respondents

Hearing: 23 May 2022

Appearances:

Applicant in person

JDJ Williams for Respondents

Judgment:

1 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. Copy to: Applicant.

BLAKE v THAMES DISTRICT COURT [2022] NZHC 1235 [1 June 2022]

The case

[1] Roger William Blake and NZ Water Purifier Ltd1 face charges in the District Court under the Medicines Act 1981. The charges rely, at least in part, on evidence obtained by search warrants. Roger-William has filed a claim seeking judicial review of the issue of the warrants. The claim is yet to be heard. So, Roger-William seeks a stay of the charges until the claim is determined.

[2] Who is Roger-William? Mr Blake calls himself “living man, roger-william, house of blake”. Indeed, he denies being Mr Blake because Mr Blake is a “corporate entity”, not “a living man”.2 Roger-William describes himself as Mr Blake’s beneficiary, creditor, attorney and “Principal Administrator”. To avoid consternation, I refer to Mr Blake as Roger-William.

[3] The prosecution—Police and Medsafe—opposes Roger-William’s stay application and seeks an order striking out some defendants in the judicial review claim.3 Roger-William opposes this application.

[4] This judgment determines the strike out and stay applications which, as with the balance of the litigation, Roger-William conducts without counsel. It also addresses outstanding discovery disputes.

The background in brief

[5] Roger-William is or was a director of NZ Water Purifier, which conducted business as Ngatea Water Gardens.

[6] From 6 July 2020, Police applied for search warrants in relation to 7 McMillan Street, Ngatea; and Ngatea Water Gardens, Bratlie Place, Ngatea. I assume these addresses are Roger-William’s home and NZ Water Purifier’s premises.4

1      NZ Water Purifier.
2      Somewhat inconsistently, Roger-William filed an “Affidavit of Life” in which he says, “the entity known as Roger William Blake is … in fact the living Roger-William of the house of blake”.
3      I use the compendious expression “the prosecution” for ease of reference despite this being a civil proceeding.
4      The statement of claim does not explain their connection.

[7] The applications concerned alleged Medicines Act offending: selling, distributing and advertising new medicines (contrary to s 20); and possession of prescription medicines absent reasonable excuse (contrary to s 43).

[8] The Thames District Court issued search warrants. These were executed 15 July 2020.

[9] Medicines Act charges were laid against Roger-William and NZ Water Purifier 20 December 2020.5

[10] Roger-William filed a claim for judicial review in relation to the search warrants 1 April 2021. He filed an amended claim 22…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blake v Thames District Court and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 1235
Decision Date: 1 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roger William Blake, who also refers to himself as the "living man, roger-william, house of blake," faces charges under the Medicines Act 1981, based partly on evidence obtained through search warrants. Blake has filed a claim for judicial review regarding the issuance of these warrants and seeks a stay of the charges until his claim is determined. The prosecution opposes the stay and seeks to strike out certain defendants from the judicial review claim. This judgment addresses the stay and strike-out applications, as well as outstanding discovery disputes. The court must decide whether a stay of the charges is warranted pending the judicial review claim and whether certain defendants should be removed from the claim. Additionally, the court must resolve disputes regarding the discovery of specific documents.

The court found that Blake's arguments for a stay of the charges were insufficient. The law generally discourages the use of judicial review to challenge search warrants, and a stay should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Blake's arguments, including claims of trespass and fraud by the prosecution, did not meet the required threshold. Furthermore, the court noted that any challenges to the warrants could be made in the District Court, either before trial or during the trial itself. Therefore, the application for a stay was dismissed, allowing the charges to proceed in the District Court.

Regarding the strike-out application, the court found that nine defendants named in the judicial review claim should be removed. These individuals, who were either police officers or other officials, did not personally exercise the statutory power in question and therefore should not be parties to the claim. Removing these defendants would not prejudice the claim, as the relevant legal actors—the Thames District Court, Police, and Medsafe—remain as defendants. The court also addressed several discovery disputes, directing the prosecution to provide certain documents to Blake and instructing both parties to submit further written arguments regarding the discovery of specific correspondence between Medsafe and Police.

In summary, the court dismissed the application for a stay of the charges, ordered the removal of certain defendants from the judicial review claim, and directed the parties to resolve outstanding discovery disputes. Costs were reserved for a later determination.

Orders