Morris v Police - [2013] NZHC 1336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-090-004721 [2013] NZHC 1336

IN THE MATTER

of an application for costs under s 5 of the

Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967

BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MORRIS Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 29 May 2013

Counsel: OE Harold for Applicant
AR Burns for Respondent

Judgment: 6 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 4.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Jenny Wang & Associates, Auckland. Crown Solicitor, Auckland.

MORRIS v NZ POLICE [2013] NZHC 1336 [6 June 2013]

Introduction

[1] This is an application for costs by Mr Christopher Morris against the Police following his discharge on a count of possession of methamphetamine for supply.

[2] Mr Morris is a patched member of the Headhunters motorcycle gang. The Police contend he was the vice president of the west chapter of the Headhunters, which has a house base at Henderson. Regular weekly meetings of west chapter Headhunter members were held at 7 pm on Fridays, referred to by them as weekly “church meetings”. The house at Henderson is owned by Tapa Tohunga Group Inc. Mr Morris has no legal connection to the owner and it is not suggested that he lives at the address.

[3] On the night of Friday, 11 March 2011 a search warrant was executed on the Henderson house. Mr Morris was present with 13 other associates in the meeting room of the clubhouse. In a toilet adjacent to the meeting room, situated a few metres away from where Mr Morris and the others were sitting, the Police found a Tupperware container inside a leather motorcycle bag containing 1.187 kilograms of methamphetamine, worth in street value terms approximately $1 million. Also located on a bar in the meeting room was a shoulder bag containing 24 grams of methamphetamine. Inside that bag were the bail papers of the president of the Headhunters west chapter, Mr David Dunn, one of the co-accused.

[4] Several other gang members were found to be in possession of methamphetamine pipes, but not Mr Morris. There may also have been some fingerprint and DNA evidence linking Headhunter gang members to what was found, but nothing found showed any connection to Mr Morris.

[5] Mr Morris was arrested on 14 March 2011. On his first appearance that day, his counsel Mr Harold asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. He filed an application for costs on the basis that the prosecution had not taken proper steps to investigate matters, and were not conducting the prosecution in a reasonable and proper manner.

[6] In the bail hearings that followed in the District Court and on appeal in the High Court, Mr Harold made strong submissions that the Police case could not succeed. On 11 April 2011 in an oral judgment responding to an application for variation of a 24 hour curfew bail term, Judge H M Simpson…

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 [2013] NZHC 1336
Case: [2013] NZHC 1336
Decision Date: 6 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morris v Police involved an application for costs by Christopher Morris against the New Zealand Police. Morris, a member of the Headhunters motorcycle gang, was discharged on a count of possession of methamphetamine for supply. He sought costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, arguing that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence and did not conduct the investigation properly. The central legal issues were whether Morris was entitled to costs under the Act, and if so, what the appropriate amount should be.

The court found that the prosecution did not act in good faith and lacked sufficient evidence to support a conviction from the outset. Despite this, the Police continued with the prosecution, despite clear indications from the courts of the weakness of their case. The court concluded that the prosecution's actions fell under s 5(2)(b) of the Act, warranting a costs award to signal the weakness of the Police position. The court also found that the case was of special importance, justifying an award exceeding the maximum scale of costs. However, Morris's silence and lack of cooperation with the Police were considered, leading to an award of $10,000 towards his defence costs, and a further $1,600 for the costs of the application.

The final orders of the court were that Morris is entitled to a contribution of $10,000, including GST, towards the costs of his defence, and a further $1,600, including GST, towards the costs of the application.

Orders