R v Watts CA350/05

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Watts CA350/05 was heard on 12 April 2006. The appellant, Clinton Lawrence Watts, was challenging a pre-trial ruling by Judge Tuohy that deemed admissible under s 344A Crimes Act 1961 a statement made to a police officer after his vehicle was stopped, and evidence of a brass knuckle-duster being located at his address. The appeal was dismissed on the same day as the hearing concluded.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's statement and the evidence of the brass knuckle-duster were admissible, considering the alleged unlawful stopping of the appellant's vehicle and his subsequent detention. The appellant's counsel argued that these unlawful actions led to the admission and the locating of the knuckle-duster, rendering them inadmissible. The Crown argued that the search warrant was lawful, and the appellant's cooperation expedited the search, making it reasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was not under arrest or being detained when his vehicle was stopped, and the administering of his rights did not create a situation of detention. The court also found that the appellant knew what the police were looking for because he had been given a copy of the search warrant specifying the brass knuckle-duster as the object of the search. The unlawful stopping of the vehicle did not affect the subsequent lawful execution of the warrant at the appellant's home, and there was no nexus between the unlawful stopping and the locating of the knuckle-duster. The evidence of the appellant's admission and the subsequent finding of the brass knuckle-duster at his address were deemed properly admissible at his trial.