Police v District Court at Christchurch

[2024] NZHC 2972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-460

[2024] NZHC 2972

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

AND

THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

First Respondent

AND

KINGSTON COWELL

Second Respondent

AND

JACKSON MANSON/WHAKATIHI

Third Respondent

Hearing:

10 October 2024

Appearances:

W S Taffs and L Fiennes for Applicant

K H Cook and H V Bennett for Second Respondent N R Wham for Third Respondent

Judgment:

11 October 2024

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(application for judicial review)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

POLICE v DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH AND OTHERS [2024] NZHC 2972 [11 October 2024]

[1]                 Judge Mill, sitting in the District Court at Christchurch declined an application brought by the Police for a suspect compulsion order (SCO) against the second respondent. Police apply to judicially review that decision and invite this Court to quash the decision of the District Court and grant an SCO.

[2]                 Mr Cowell is jointly charged with Mr Manson with aggravated robbery at a residential Christchurch address on 26 February 2023, where it is alleged both offenders attempted to conceal their identities and were armed with firearms.

[3]                 Mr Cowell was charged with aggravated robbery on 8 November 2023. He had been identified as a suspect after Police found three firearms at an address with which he had an association. Forensic analysis of swabs taken from each of those firearms identified DNA corresponding to the DNA profile held on the databank for Mr Cowell.

[4]                 One of the victims of the aggravated robbery then identified Mr Cowell (and one other person) as an offender (Male 1) through a photo montage and positively identified one of the firearms found by the police as the firearm used by Male 1 during the aggravated robbery.

[5]                 On 6 June 2024, Judge Crosbie made pre-trial admissibility rulings declining to admit both the visual identification evidence of Mr Cowell and the victim’s positive identification of the firearm.

[6]                 On 30 July 2024, the Police filed an application for a SCO under s 16 of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 to formalise the results of the DNA databank hit on the firearm. That application was opposed. It was heard by Judge Mill on 14 August 2024.

[7]                 At that stage the trial of Messrs Cowell and Manson was scheduled to proceed in the District Court on 26 August 2024. On 20 August, the Crown filed an application to adjourn the trial to allow the Crown to file this proceeding. The trial was adjourned to 21 October 2024. The judicial review application was filed on 29 August 2024.

[8]                 It was necessary for Mr Cowell (and Mr Manson) to make application for a grant of civil legal aid. That led to some delays. However, ultimately, Mr Cook (not counsel for Mr Cowell in the District Court) agreed to act and did not oppose the Crown application for to abridge time for the filing of a statement of defence, nor to the Court allocating an urgent hearing.

[9]                 I heard the application yesterday. I indicated to counsel that I would endeavour to deliver a results decision before the close of play today. My decision might well impact as to whether the trial is able to proceed on 21 October 2024.

Result

[10]             I am not satisfied that any of the grounds advanced in support of the application are made out.

[11]The application for judicial review of Judge Mill’s decision is declined.

[12]Full reasons will follow shortly.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Christchurch Prime Legal Limited, Christchurch

Counsel:

K H Cook, Barrister, Christchurch H V Bennett, Barrister, Christchurch