Hunt v R

Case [2010] NZCA 528 19 November 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

ORDER RESCINDING EXISTING SUPPRESSION ORDERS IN RESPECT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 19 NOVEMBER 2010, MADE BY THE HIGH COURT ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2011. IN PLACE OF THOSE ORDERS, ORDERS PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA, ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASES OR PUBLICATION BY ANY OTHER MEANS UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE TRIAL.

REDACTED VERSION MAY BE PUBLISHED.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA809/2009, CA812/2009, CA813/2009

CA814/2009, CA815/2009, CA820/2009

CA821/2009, CA822/2009, CA825/2009
CA832/2009, CA28/2010, CA37/2010

CA38/2010, CA75/2010, CA146/2010 [2010] NZCA 528

BETWEEN RAUANATIRI HUNT MARAMA MAYRICK MARAKI TEEPA TAME WAIRERE ITI RAWIRI KIYOMI ITI VALERIE MORSE
EMILY FELICITY BAILEY JAMIE BEATTIE LOCKETT OMAR HAMED
TEKAUMARUA WHAREPOURI WATENE MCCLUTCHIE
TRUDI PARAHA
TE RANGIKAIWHIRIA KEMARA TUHOE LAMBERT
PHILLIP PUREWA Appellants

ANDTHE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 8 and 9 June 2010

Court: William Young P, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ

RAUANATIRI HUNT V R COA CA809/2009, CA812/2009, CA813/2009 [19 November 2010]

Counsel: R E Harrison QC for Appellants Hunt, Mayrick, Tame Iti, Rawiri Iti, Morse, Bailey, Lockett, Hamed, Wharepouri, McClutchie, Paraha, Kemara, Lambert and Purewa
A T I Sykes and T M Wara for Appellant Teepa
J C Pike and A R Burns for Respondent

Judgment: 19 November 2010 at 2.30 pm

Reissued: 20 September 2011 : see minute of 20 September 2011

Effective Date
of Judgment: 19 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A We refuse leave to appeal in relation to the text messages.

BWe grant leave to appeal in relation to the results of the surveillance (in- person and by stationary camera) and the physical searches, but dismiss
the appeal.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by William Young P)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1] The facts in summary [6] Our summary of the issues raised by the appeal [13] The validity of the search warrants [14] Areas of controversy [14]
Were the warrants illegitimately anticipatory? [16] Alleged collateral purpose [24] Conclusion as to the search warrants [32]

The extent to which the search warrants authorised surveillance
operations  [33]
Surveillance operations under the November 2006 warrant  [33]
Surveillance operations under the later search warrants  [36]

The need for statutory authority for operations in open country [43] Overview [43] Whether police surveillance operations in open country are
properly characterised as searches for the purposes of

s 21 of NZBORA [45]

The circumstances in which police activities or operations

may be covered by an implied licence [50]

Standing [58] The 16 May 2007 reconnaissance exercise [60] Installation of a stationary camera beside and trained on Reid Road [67] The walkover of the area at the end of Whetu Road [70] The s 30 balancing exercise [75] The relevance of the exercise [75]
The terms of the section [78] The approach of the Judge [79] Criticisms of the Judge’s approach and our responses [82] Our evaluation [88]

Disposition [93]

Introduction

[1] The case relates to what the Crown maintains were quasi-military training camps on…

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 Hunt v R

Details

AGLC: Hunt v R [2010] NZCA 528
Case: [2010] NZCA 528
Decision Date: 19 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hunt v R involved an appeal against the admissibility of evidence obtained through police surveillance and searches of land owned by Tuhoe trusts near Ruatoki. The appellants were alleged to have participated in quasi-military training camps on the land, and faced charges under the Arms Act 1983. The appellants challenged the admissibility of evidence obtained through surveillance and searches, as well as text messages obtained via search warrants. The Court of Appeal found that all of the search warrants were valid, and that the warrants authorised the surveillance operations carried out by the police. The Court also found that police surveillance operations in open country were not properly characterised as searches for the purposes of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Finally, the Court concluded that the evidence obtained was admissible, as the public interest in prosecuting the serious offences outweighed the impropriety of the police actions.

Orders