Legal Research
Cases
R v Briggs

R v Briggs

Case [2009] NZCA 244 12 June 2009

Arrest Without Warrant

Reasonable Suspicion

Discretion to Arrest

Team Policing

Proper Grounds for Arrest

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA298/2009
CA299/2009
CA300/2009
[2009] NZCA 244
THE QUEEN
v
ARTHUR BRIGGS
STEFAN HOEER
ERU TE WHATA
Hearing:11 June 2009

Court:Arnold, Harrison and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:M D Downs and M B Smith for Crown

G R Anson for Respondent Arthur Briggs
A B Fairley for Respondent Stefan Hoeer
C Muston for Respondent Eru Te Whata

Judgment:12 June 2009 at 10.30 am
Reasons:6 November 2009 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

We grant the Solicitor-General leave to appeal and allow the appeal. The evidence obtained from the respondents consequent upon their arrest without warrant is admissible.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Arnold J)

Table of Contents
Introduction   [1]
Factual background  [5]
The High Court decision  [12]
Discussion  [20]
Corrections legislation  [21]
The need for arrest: the authorities  [29]
Application to facts  [66]
(i)       Failure to exercise discretion  [68]
(ii)      Irrationality  [76]

Decision  [87]
Introduction
[1]        The Solicitor-General applied for leave to appeal against a decision of Duffy J in which she ruled certain evidence inadmissible in the respondents’ upcoming trial: HK WHA CRI-2008-027-000660 14 May 2009. Given the proximity of the trial, we heard the application for leave to appeal and the appeal together. We granted leave and allowed the appeal, with reasons to follow. These are our reasons.
[2]        The respondents were prison inmates, on remand in relation to other offending. They and three others were charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The victim was another remand prisoner, who had recently been transferred to the particular prison unit. The Crown alleged that the respondents and the other inmates systematically beat the victim, to such an extent that he spent two weeks in hospital in an intensive care unit. One of the likely issues at the trial was the identification of his assailants.
[3] The police obtained the evidence at issue after arresting the respondents without warrant at the prison and taking them to a police station for processing in terms of s 57 of the Police Act 1958 (now repealed and replaced by s 32 of the Police Act 2008). Duffy J held that although the police had good cause to suspect that the respondents had committed the offence, the arrests were unlawful because the police had not exercised their discretion whether or not to arrest. The Judge considered that the arrests were unnecessary as the respondents, being already incarcerated, could have been summonsed to appear. As the arrests were unlawful, the evidence obtained as a consequence of them was unlawfully obtained. The Judge held that it should be excluded following the balancing test provided for in s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.
[4]        The Solicitor-General wished to appeal against both aspects of the Judge’s decision. The respondents cross-appealed on grounds that we detail below.
Factual background
[5]        The Crown alleged that on 8 March 2008, at the direction of a co-accused, the respondents and other remand…

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 R v Briggs

Details

AGLC: R v Briggs [2009] NZCA 244
Case: [2009] NZCA 244
Decision Date: 12 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the admissibility of evidence obtained by the police following the arrest of three prison inmates. The respondents were charged with a serious offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The police arrested the respondents at the prison and took them to a police station for processing in terms of s 57 of the Police Act 1958. The respondents challenged the admissibility of the evidence obtained following their arrests. Duffy J excluded the evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the evidence obtained from the respondents consequent upon their arrest without warrant is admissible. The arrests were lawful because the police had reasonable cause to suspect that the respondents had committed the offence and had exercised their discretion to arrest. Further, the Court found that arrest was an appropriate and reasonable response in the circumstances. The Court held that it would have been difficult for the police to investigate the offence and deal with the respondents in the prison. Further, the evidence of the witness was likely to be an important issue at trial. The Court held that the police were entitled to assert some control over the situation, and to mark the seriousness of what had occurred, by effecting arrests.

Orders