Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 11/2016
[2016] NZSC 36

BETWEEN

KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD
Applicant

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
First Respondent

ERANA KING
Second Respondent

THE PERRIN TRUST
Third Respondent

ANZ BANK
Fourth Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	R E Harrison QC and M W Ryan for Applicant M D Downs and P D Marshall for First Respondent A G Speed for Second Respondent No appearance for Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment:	11 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
BThe approved question is:
Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The issues arising in this appeal have some commonality with those arising in R v A(SC 12/2016) for which leave was given on 15 March 2016 and which is due to be heard on 16 June 2016.[1] For this reason it would be convenient to the Court for the present appeal to be heard at or near the same time as R v A. We therefore set the present appeal down for hearing on 16 June 2016, immediately after R v A, with provision for the hearing to continue into 17 June 2016 if necessary.
[1]R v A(SC 12/2016) [2016] NZSC 21. A suppression order has been made in relation to that judgment.

Solicitors:
Edwards Clarke Dickie, Auckland for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood against The Commissioner of Police and others was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Justices William Young, Arnold, and O'Regan. The central issue in this case was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its determination that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to exclude certain evidence obtained through a search of the applicant's premises. Additionally, the court had to consider whether, if an error was found, the challenged evidence should be excluded in the current proceedings.

The legal issues revolved around the scope of judicial power to exclude evidence and the implications of such exclusion on the fairness and integrity of legal proceedings. The applicant argued that the evidence obtained through the search should be excluded due to procedural irregularities or violations of his rights. Conversely, the respondents contended that the evidence was lawfully obtained and should be admissible, emphasizing the importance of upholding the integrity of law enforcement processes.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the significance of the issues at hand, particularly in relation to the balance between law enforcement powers and individual rights. The court determined that the Court of Appeal had indeed erred in its assessment of the High Court's jurisdiction to exclude the challenged evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the evidence in question should be excluded, recognizing the necessity to protect the rights of individuals from unlawful intrusions. The Supreme Court's ruling underscored the importance of ensuring that law enforcement actions adhere to legal standards and respect individual rights.

The final orders of the court included granting leave to appeal and setting the appeal for hearing on 16 June 2016, alongside the related case of R v A. The court's decision in this case is significant in clarifying the jurisdiction of High Courts to exclude evidence obtained through potentially unlawful means, thereby reinforcing the protection of individual rights against improper law enforcement practices.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established