Grigg v Police - [2021] NZHC 3611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-085-613

[2021] NZHC 3611

BETWEEN
MATTHEW PHILIP GRIGG

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 December 2021 (via VMR)

Appearances:

B Dawson for Appellant

A McCluskey for Respondent

Judgment:

22 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1] One evening Mr Grigg was driving his motor vehicle on Kent Terrace, Wellington. There is no doubt he was lawfully pulled over by two police officers pursuant to s 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA), and subjected to a breath alcohol screening process.

[2] Due in part to Mr Grigg’s behaviour, information about him on the Police National Intelligence Application, and Mr Grigg’s answers to questions, the officers formed the view Mr Grigg may be under the influence of methamphetamine and that they had reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Grigg had illicit substances in his vehicle.

[3] Police then instituted a warrantless search pursuant to s 20 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. They located a small amount of methamphetamine and a glass pipe for smoking it.

GRIGG v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 3611 [22 December 2021]

[4]As a result, Mr Grigg has been charged with:

(a)possession of methamphetamine;

(b)possession of utensils for the consumption of methamphetamine.1

[5] The issue for determination is whether the search of Mr Grigg’s motor vehicle was unlawful and, if it was, whether the evidence uncovered by that search ought to be excluded.

The background in further detail

[6] At 11.25 pm on 9 March 2020, Mr Grigg was driving a Ford motor vehicle south on Kent Terrace in Wellington.

[7] He was observed by two police officers in a patrol car, Police Constable Sarah Wing, and Sergeant Dean Burger. The officers had noticed Mr Grigg stop quite short of a red traffic light, some distance back from the intersection. Constable Wing checked the vehicle’s number plate through the Police Identification System, which identified two alerts in relation to Mr Grigg:

(a)An alert for a drug supplier; and

(b)A firearms alert.

[8] Sergeant Burger was also able to determine that Mr Grigg’s most recent drugs related conviction related to methamphetamine in 2015.

[9] As a result of all this, a decision was made by Sergeant Burger to pull the vehicle over pursuant to s 114 of the Land Transport Act. That provision confers a power on enforcement officers to require a driver to stop and provide particulars such as the driver’s full name, address, date of birth and occupation. Subsection 114(5) further provides that while an enforcement office may require a driver to remain

1 Mr Grigg is also charged with resisting police, but that additional charge is not subject to the current appeal.

stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary to establish the identity of the driver, the period of detention must not exceed 15 minutes.

[10] Sergeant Burger spoke to Mr Grigg and asked for his particulars. Mr Grigg identified himself…

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 Grigg v Police

Details

AGLC: Grigg v Police [2021] NZHC 3611
Case: [2021] NZHC 3611
Decision Date: 22 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Grigg v Police involves the legality of a police search of Matthew Grigg's motor vehicle and the admissibility of the evidence obtained from that search. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry. Mr Grigg was lawfully pulled over by police, and a breath alcohol screening was conducted. However, due to his behaviour and information on the Police National Intelligence Application, the officers suspected Mr Grigg of being under the influence of methamphetamine and having illicit substances in his vehicle. The police conducted a warrantless search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and found methamphetamine and a glass pipe for smoking it.

The central legal issues in the case were whether Mr Grigg was arbitrarily detained in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and if so, whether the evidence uncovered by the unlawful search should be excluded under the Evidence Act 2006. The Court found that Mr Grigg was indeed arbitrarily detained after he passed the breath test and before the warrantless search was conducted, as the police had no lawful authority to require him to exit his vehicle. However, the Court concluded that excluding the evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety, taking into account the need for an effective and credible system of justice. The intrusion was considered minor, and the evidence was vital to the prosecution. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Court's reasoning focused on the objective belief of a reasonable person in Mr Grigg's position, who would have understood they were still detained after completing the breath test. The Court also considered the short duration of the unlawful detention, the lack of bad faith or recklessness on the part of the police, and the fundamental nature of the evidence obtained. The balance of factors weighed in favour of admitting the evidence.

Orders