Morris v Police - [2025] NZHC 1684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000254

[2025] NZHC 1684

BETWEEN
CALEN CHRISTOPHER MORRIS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 June 2025

Appearances:

V I Tava for Appellant G Young for Respondent

Judgment

24 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 24 June 2025 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date: …………………………….

MORRIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1684 [24 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Morris seeks to appeal against the decision of Judge L Tremewan in the District Court ruling evidence of cocaine and anabolic steroids found at his address admissible at trial.1

[2] The drug and prescription medicine were seized by the Police pursuant to s 123 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (Act) (seizure of items in plain view). The critical issue to address is whether the requirements of s 123 were met.

[3] Pursuant to s 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, leave is required to appeal against Judge Tremewan’s decision (a pre-trial direction).

[4] On 28 May 2025, I directed that the application for leave to appeal, and the substantive appeal, be heard together.

[5] The Police do not oppose leave and given that the evidence involved is central to the prosecution case, leave is granted.

[6] First appeals against pre-trial decisions are general appeals.2 This Court is entitled to arrive at its own assessment of the merits of the case,3 but may give weight to the reasoning of the lower court where it considers it appropriate.4

Factual background

[7] Mr Morris faces a charge of possessing cocaine5 and a charge of possessing anabolic steroids in breach of the Medicines Act 1981.6

[8] On 19 April 2024, a search warrant was issued to Police under s 6 of the Act for evidential material in relation to driving charges against Mr Morris.

1      Police v Morris [2025] NZDC 9743.
2      R v Gwaze [2010] NZSC 52; [2010] 3 NZLR 734 at [49]–[53].
3      Austin, Nicholls & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] NZLR 141 at [5].
4      Austin, Nicholls & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar, above n 3, at [16].
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7: maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
6      Medicines Act 1981, ss 43 and 78: maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $500.

[9] The warrant authorised Police to search Mr Morris’ home for various items, including a black hooded jumper with a motorcycle printed on the front, black gloves, black track pants, Nike shoes, a clown mask, a pig mask, all electronic storage devices attributable to Mr Morris, and keys to two vehicles. The warrant also authorised Police to extract, analyse and retain digital evidence from the relevant devices.

[10] On 23 April 2024, the Police executed…

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 Morris v Police

Details

AGLC: Morris v Police [2025] NZHC 1684
Case: [2025] NZHC 1684
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Calen Christopher Morris, has appealed the decision of Judge L Tremewan in the District Court, which ruled that evidence of cocaine and anabolic steroids found at his address was admissible at trial. The legal issue at hand was whether the requirements of s 123 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 were met, which allows for the seizure of items in plain view during a lawful search. The police had seized the drugs under this provision, and Mr Morris sought to challenge the admissibility of this evidence.

The court found that Judge Tremewan correctly interpreted s 123, relying on the Law Commission’s comments and the precedent in Roskam v R. The court determined that the plain view doctrine allows for items to be discovered during lawful investigative activity within the boundaries of an authorised search. The search was ongoing and not a fishing expedition, as not all items listed in the warrant had been found at the time the drugs were discovered. The police had reasonable grounds to believe they could have obtained a warrant to search the medicine bottle, and thus, the seizure of the cocaine and steroids was lawful under s 123. The court rejected Mr Morris's contention that opening the medicine bottle was an unlawful step. The appeal was dismissed, and the evidence remains admissible.

[34] The appeal is dismissed. Andrew J

Orders