Legal Research
Cases
Lethbridge v Police

Lethbridge v Police

Case [2018] NZHC 2240 28 August 2018

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Unlawful Search and Seizure

Breach of Privacy

Admissibility of Evidence

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

Evidence Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2018-485-45

[2018] NZHC 2240

TAYLOR OWEN JAYDEN LETHBRIDGE

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 7 August 2018

Appearances:

V E Thursby for the Appellant

A R van Echten for the Respondent

Judgment:

28 August 2018

REASONS JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Mr Lethbridge seeks leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling, which held that a Police search of Mr Lethbridge’s property was lawful and the evidence seized during the search was admissible.1

[2] Mr Lethbridge submits the search was unlawful and unreasonable and the evidence was improperly obtained in breach of Mr Lethbridge’s rights. He argues the evidence should be excluded under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal and submits it was open to the Judge to find there was a reasonable belief that the evidence may be concealed if there was not an immediate search and that it was impracticable for the Police to obtain a warrant.

1 New Zealand Police v Lethbridge [2018] NZDC 13114. This is the reasons decision following my results decision on 16 August 2018: Lethbridge v New Zealand Police [2018] NZHC 2106.

LETHBRIDGE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2240 [28 August 2018]

[4] The key issue to be determined in this case is whether the Judge erred in finding the search of Mr Lethbridge’s property was lawful. Specifically, did the Judge err in finding there were reasonable grounds to believe the evidential material would be destroyed or concealed if entry was delayed to obtain a search warrant? If the answer is yes, the subsequent issues are:

(a)whether the search was unreasonable in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA); and

(b)whether the evidence should be excluded under s 30 of the Evidence Act.

Factual background

[5] Mr Lethbridge faces the following charges, which are scheduled to be heard by Judge-alone trial:

(a)possession of an offensive weapon;2

(b)intimidation;3

(c)possession of cannabis;4

(d)possession of cannabis oil;5 and

(e)possession of utensils.6

[6] These charges stem from incidents on 24 June 2017. There was a report of some men running around Waikanae near the supermarket. One of the men had an axe. Police were called to the scene and arrested the two men, including Mr

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a).
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2).
5      Section 7(1)(a) and (2).
6      Section 13(1)(a) and (3).

Lethbridge, outside Mr Lethbridge’s property. One of the officers asked Mr Lethbridge where the axe was and he replied, “inside the house”.

[7] The defendants were taken to the local Police station while one officer remained and searched Mr Lethbridge’s property without a warrant. The address was well known to Police. The officer went to the front and back door but both were locked and there was no answer. There was a car in the driveway. There was a car…

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 Lethbridge v Police

Details

AGLC: Lethbridge v Police [2018] NZHC 2240
Case: [2018] NZHC 2240
Decision Date: 28 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lethbridge v Police involves an appeal against a pre-trial ruling, which held that a Police search of Mr Lethbridge's property was lawful and the evidence seized was admissible. Mr Lethbridge argues that the search was unlawful and unreasonable, and the evidence was improperly obtained in breach of his rights. He seeks to exclude the evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the search was lawful and the evidence should be admitted. The court's reasoning focuses on whether the warrantless search was lawful under s 83 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, and if the search was unreasonable under s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court also considers whether the evidence should be excluded under s 30 of the Evidence Act. The court found that the warrantless search was unlawful and unreasonable, and the evidence obtained was improperly obtained. The court held that the evidence should be excluded under s 30 of the Evidence Act, as the exclusion was proportionate to the impropriety and the need for an effective and credible system of justice.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the evidence obtained from the warrantless search was deemed unlawful, unreasonable, and inadmissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

Orders