For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THIS JUDGMENT, THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (APART FROM [8] - [153], [209] - [253], [258] - [292] AND [297] IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
CHRISTOPHER DAVID WILLIAMS DALE ARTHUR WILLIAMS SHANE EDWARD WILLIAMS SCOTT JAMES CORLESS
JOHN IVAN SIMETI JOSEPH ABRAHAM ANAE KURA TIRINGA WILLIAMS PHILLIP ROBARTS
BRIAN SYDNEY MCLAUGHLIN JULIE KAREN NIBLET
JOHN MALCOLM TE MONI
Hearing: 18 May 2006
Court: William Young P, Glazebrook and Hammond JJ Counsel: J C Pike and M D Downs for Crown
C P Comeskey for Respondent C D Williams No appearance for Respondent D A Williams L B Cordwell for Respondent S E Williams
R M Mansfield for Respondent S J Corless
R V WILLIAMS AND ORS CA CA372/05, CA373/05, CA374/05 29 November 2006
C B Cato for Respondents J I Simeti and P Robarts
P J B Winter for Respondent J A Anae P H H Tomlinson for Respondent K T Williams G N Bradford for Respondents B S McLaughlin and J K Niblet A G Speed for Respondent J M Te Moni
Judgment: 29 November 2006
Reasons for Judgment: 7 March 2007 at 12.30pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application of the Solicitor-General for leave to appeal is granted. B The appeal is allowed to the extent set out in C and D below.
C The determination of the High Court that the evidence gained from the
Patiki Road search not be led at trial is confirmed.
DThe evidence gained from the subsequent searches is admissible at trial, subject to this evidence being able to be given and understood without reference to the Patiki Road search and subject to any other considerations which have not been raised before this Court.
EPublication of the judgment, the reasons for judgment and any part of the proceedings (apart from [8] - [153], [209] - [253], [258] - [292] and [297] in the news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible database is prohibited until the final disposition of the trial. Publication in law reports or law digests is permitted.
REASONS
William Young P and Glazebrook J [1] Hammond J [258]
WILLIAM YOUNG P AND GLAZEBROOK J
(Given by Glazebrook J)
Table of Contents
Para No
Introduction [1]
What are the principles that should apply in search and
seizure cases? [8]
Overview [8] The link between unlawfulness and unreasonableness [12] When can bad faith render a warrant unlawful? [25] Who can complain about a breach of rights? [47] The effect of a breach on downstream evidence [79] How should the Shaheed balancing test be conducted? [104] NATURE OF THE RIGHT [106] EXTENT OF ILLEGALITY [110] NATURE…
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 Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Williams [2007] NZCA 52
Case
[2007] NZCA 52
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Williams involved a number of respondents who were charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. The respondents challenged the admissibility of the evidence against them, arguing that the initial search of premises in Patiki Road was unlawful and unreasonable, and that this tainted all subsequent evidence. The High Court had excluded the evidence from the Patiki Road search and all subsequent evidence. The Crown sought leave to appeal against this ruling. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, confirming that the evidence from the Patiki Road search should be excluded, but holding that the evidence from the subsequent searches should be admissible, subject to certain conditions. The Court held that an unlawful search is generally an unreasonable search, except in certain limited circumstances. The Court also clarified the principles surrounding the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, including the factors to be considered in conducting the Shaheed balancing test. The Court emphasised the importance of judicial pre-authorisation for searches and the need for police to adhere to the requirements of the law in obtaining search warrants.