Police v Teddy - [2013] NZHC 432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-470-000031 [2013] NZHC 432

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Appellant

v

ELVIS HEREMIA TEDDY
Respondent

Hearing: 16 November 2012

Counsel: B Keith and B Martin for Appellant
R Mansfield and V Withy for Respondent

Judgment: 7 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 2:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

B Keith, Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington. B Martin, Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington
R Mansfield, Barrister, PO Box 2674, Shortland Street, Auckland.
V Withy, Barrister, PO Box 2674, Shortland Street, Auckland.

POLICE V TEDDY HC ROT CRI-2011-470-000031 [7 March 2013]

Introduction

[1] In April 2011, the motor vessel, Orient Explorer was conducting a seismic survey of the Raukumara Basin, on behalf of Petrobras, a Brazilian oil and gas exploration company. In 2010, Petrobras had been granted a five year permit by the New Zealand Government to carry out exploratory activities over a substantial part of the basin, which extends about 300 kilometres north of East Cape and tapers from a width about 100 kilometres in the south to about 50 kilometres in the north.

[2] On 23 April 2011, the New Zealand Police boarded a fishing vessel, the San Pietro, which was being sailed by the respondent within about 20 metres of the bow of the Orient Explorer as part of protest activity involving Greenpeace and East Cape iwi. The San Pietro was, at the time, outside New Zealand’s 12 mile territorial limit. The respondent refused to relinquish the wheel of the vessel, alter course or comply with Police instructions. He was arrested and charged with operating a vessel, the San Pietro, in a manner that caused unnecessary risk to the Orient Explorer, contrary to s 65(1)(a) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, and resisting a constable acting in pursuance of his duty, contrary to s 23(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1968.

[3] Following a defended hearing in the Tauranga District Court on 23, 24, 25 and 26 July 2012, Judge Treston ruled that the charges were nullities because s
65(1)(a) did not apply beyond New Zealand’s 12 mile territorial limit. The Police subsequently filed an appeal by way of case stated against Judge Treston’s ruling.

[4] The questions for the opinion of the High Court are whether Judge Treston was erroneous in point of law to rule that:

Section 65(1)(a) of the Maritime Transport Act does not have any

application beyond New Zealand’s territorial sea.

Police powers to stop and board vehicles and to arrest offenders do not have any application to vessels at sea, including beyond New Zealand’s territorial sea.

Section 23(1) of the Summary Offences Act does not have any application beyond New Zealand’s territorial sea.

District Court decision

[5] Judge Treston based his ruling that s 65(1)(a) of the Maritime Transport Act

does not apply beyond New Zealand’s 12 mile territorial limit on…

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 Police v Teddy

Details

AGLC: Police v Teddy [2013] NZHC 432
Case: [2013] NZHC 432
Decision Date: 7 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Police v Teddy, the High Court of New Zealand addressed the applicability of New Zealand maritime and criminal law to a vessel located beyond the nation’s territorial waters. Elvis Heremia Teddy, the respondent, was charged with endangering a seismic survey vessel and resisting arrest after his vessel, the San Pietro, was intercepted by the Police while operating within 20 metres of the Orient Explorer, a vessel conducting a seismic survey. The Tauranga District Court initially ruled that the charges against Teddy were nullities as it found that the relevant statutes did not apply beyond New Zealand’s 12-mile territorial limit. The Police subsequently appealed this ruling. The High Court considered whether the Maritime Transport Act 1994, the Crimes Act 1961, and the Summary Offences Act 1968 had extraterritorial application. The Court held that the Maritime Transport Act, by necessary implication, applies extraterritorially to New Zealand ships, and the Crimes Act powers to board and arrest apply beyond territorial waters. The Court also found that the Summary Offences Act must apply extraterritorially to preserve the efficacy of the Police's arrest powers. The District Court's ruling was quashed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Orders