Note Barrie v The Queen

In the case of Note Barrie v The Queen, Daniel Barrie contested his conviction for failing to permit a blood specimen to be taken under section 16 of the Land Transport Act 1998. He claimed that his conviction should be overturned because he was denied his right to consult and instruct a lawyer as provided for in section 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Barrie argued that this right extended to consulting a foreign lawyer if that was his preference. This argument had been unsuccessful in three lower courts. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether Barrie's right to counsel included the right to consult a foreign lawyer and whether the police had properly upheld his right to counsel.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the term "lawyer" in section 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 included foreign counsel, and if so, whether the police had fulfilled their obligations to ensure that Barrie's right to counsel was respected. The court also considered whether the evidence of Barrie's refusal to permit a blood specimen should be excluded under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006. The Supreme Court noted that while the interpretation of "lawyer" might be of general importance, in this particular case, the police had offered to facilitate Barrie's contact with his lawyer in Sydney, and it was not the police's fault that Barrie could not remember his lawyer's name. Additionally, Judge Ingram had carefully evaluated whether the evidence should be excluded under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006, concluding it should not be, a decision which had not been challenged.

The Supreme Court concluded that Barrie's appeal must fail for two reasons. Firstly, the police had offered to assist Barrie in contacting his lawyer in Sydney, and it was not their fault that he could not recall his lawyer's name. Secondly, Judge Ingram had concluded that the evidence should not be excluded under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006, a decision which had not been challenged. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court did not find it necessary to address the broader issue of whether the right to counsel included foreign counsel in this specific instance.