R v Soma CA217/04

In the case of R v Soma, the appellant, Haresh Soma, sought leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling given by Judge McElrea in the District Court at Auckland. The issue before the Court was whether the police officers were entitled to go to the rear of Mr Soma’s property after first knocking at his front door and receiving no response. The Court of Appeal held that the police officers were entitled to enter Mr Soma’s property for the purpose of communicating with the occupier, as per the decision in R v Bradley. The Court found that the police officers were acting in good faith and that there were no physical barriers or signs restricting entry to the property. The Court also held that the implied licence did not restrict the police officers to only one visit to the property. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the implied licence allowed the police officers to enter Mr Soma’s property for the purpose of communicating with the occupier. The Court found that the police officers were acting in good faith and that there were no physical barriers or signs restricting entry to the property. The Court also held that the implied licence did not restrict the police officers to only one visit to the property. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court further held that the police officers were entitled to go to the back of the property to make inquiries of the occupier in relation to the subject matter of their investigation. Having done that they were then entitled to invoke s18(2) once evidence was available that there were drugs on the property. For these reasons, the Court was satisfied that the Judge was right to admit the evidence.