R v Bourne

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-044-003817

[2025] NZHC 1167

THE KING

v

DESMOND LAWRENCE BOURNE SERENE TILSLEY

Hearing: 14 May 2025

Counsel:

C R Purdon for Crown

Judgment:

14 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[Warrant to Arrest Witness]

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown

R v BOURNE [2025] NZHC 1167 [14 May 2025]

[1] On 18 July 2023, I issued a warrant pursuant to s 161 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) for the arrest of Ms Dyanne Norris and for her to be brought before the Court. That is because Ms Norris was a witness in this trial, had been summoned to appear under s 159 of the Act, and had failed to answer the summons.

[2] Earlier today, I was advised by the registry that the warrant has now been executed and that Ms Norris was in custody in the courthouse. The registry official suggested I withdraw the warrant.

[3] Pursuant to s 163 of the Act, the warrant may be withdrawn by leave of a judicial officer at any time before it is executed. This warrant has now been executed.

[4] Section 164 of the Act prescribes what can be done with a witness who has been arrested under a warrant. The choices are to detain the witness in a prison until the hearing for which the witness is required or to grant them bail.

[5] The purpose for which the warrant was issued ceased to exist once the trial for which Ms Norris was required as a witness came to an end. The s 164 options cannot be exercised. It is possible that contempt of court proceedings could be pursued, but that is for the Crown.

[6] In the event, I had Ms Norris appear in open court to answer to the warrant. The Crown was represented.

[7]Nothing further can be done, and I direct that Ms Norris be released.

Brewer J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Desmond Lawrence Bourne and Serene Tilsley are before the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, facing charges. The case revolves around the issuance and execution of a warrant for the arrest of Dyanne Norris, a witness in the trial, who failed to appear after being summoned. The Crown sought the warrant under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to compel her attendance. The warrant was executed, and Ms Norris was taken into custody. The court had to determine whether the warrant could be withdrawn post-execution and what steps, if any, should be taken regarding Ms Norris's continued detention or potential contempt proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the warrant, which had been executed, could still be withdrawn under section 163 of the Act. Additionally, the court needed to address what should be done with Ms Norris now that the trial for which she was required as a witness had concluded. The court considered whether any further action, such as contempt proceedings, was warranted under the circumstances.

The court found that while section 163 of the Act allows for the withdrawal of a warrant before its execution, the warrant in this case had already been executed. Section 164 of the Act provides that once a witness has been arrested under a warrant, the court may either detain the witness in a prison until the hearing or grant them bail. However, since the purpose of the warrant had ceased to exist with the conclusion of the trial, neither of these options could be exercised. The court directed that Ms Norris be released and that no further action be taken regarding her arrest.

The court ultimately directed that Dyanne Norris be released from custody as no further action could be taken regarding her arrest under the circumstances. The court also made it clear that any potential contempt proceedings were a matter for the Crown to pursue.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	14 May 2025
Counsel:	C R Purdon for Crown
Judgment:	14 May 2025