R v Hata CA441/05

The case before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand is an application for leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling made in the District Court at Tauranga on 14 October 2005. The ruling was made under section 344A of the Crimes Act 1961, and it held the disputed evidence was admissible. The appellant, George Hata, was charged with a breach of section 12(a) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and section 21(1)(a) for performing a significant surgical procedure on one of the horses. The issue before the Court was whether the evidence obtained by Mr Wilson on 8 October 2004 should be admitted.

The Court held that Mr Wilson's entry to the appellant's land on 8 October 2004 was unlawful. He was not an inspector and had no right to enter the land. However, the Court found that Ms Jenkins could have returned the horses to the appellant's property on 9 October, and then legitimately, have immediately exercised her power of entry under section 127(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, re-seized the animals and removed them from the property to arrange for their subsequent inspection and care. The Court found that the continued detention of the horses on 9 October under Ms Jenkins' authority was lawful.

The Court held that the evidence of Mr Wilson obtained on 8 October 2004 was inadmissible, but the other disputed evidence was admissible. Baragwanath J dissented in part, holding that the evidence of Mr Wilson obtained on 8 October 2004 should be admitted. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the evidence of Mr Wilson obtained on 8 October 2004 is ruled inadmissible.