Renson v Police - [2021] NZHC 2342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-419-000023

[2021] NZHC 2342

RICHARD RENSON

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 1 September 2021

Appearances:

A Greaves and R Che Ismail for the Appellant B Harris for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 September 2021 at 3 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

RENSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2342 [8 September 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Renson was convicted of one charge of cultivation of cannabis following a Judge alone trial in the Taumarunui District Court.1 The only issue in this appeal is the admissibility of evidence obtained by police during a warrantless search of his property. He argues that the search of his home was unlawful, and the District Court Judge should not have admitted the evidence. He contends there has been a miscarriage of justice because of this asserted error.

Background facts

[2] Two police officers were conducting enquiries in Ongarue, a small rural township about 20 kilometres from Taumarunui on 21 April 2020. It was early evening. They wished to speak to Mr Renson as part of their enquiry. The officers knew that Mr Renson lived at the address in question. The officers had already been making enquiries at other addresses in the small township. They were traveling in a police vehicle. Both were in police uniform.

[3] Detective Chapman had been a member of the police for about 21 years but has since retired. He had returned to uniform that day as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic response. During his long police career, he spent 18 years working in the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB). He has considerable experience in major investigations into serious crime, including drug related offending. He was involved in the cannabis recovery programme targeting the commercial cultivation of cannabis, often on large scale but also seizing identified cannabis growing in the police district of Ruapehu.

[4] The second police officer was Senior Constable Tito. Constable Tito has been in the police force for over 22 years and has been part of the drug recovery operation for the past 18 years. He is a rural liaison or response officer for the Taumarunui region and so familiar with policing in that area.

1 Police v Renson [2021] NZDC 4883.

[5] The property in question consisted of an old post office building and an associated dwelling adjacent to it. There were other sheds and structures on the property. The police knocked at the old post office. When there was no answer, Detective Chapman went onto the adjacent property and knocked on the side door. This appeared to be the dwelling entrance. He then moved to the rear of the dwelling and knocked. On returning, he noticed an open door at the back of the old post office with a light on. He made his way up to that rear door, knocked and called out repeatedly. It was while…

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 Renson v Police

Details

AGLC: Renson v Police [2021] NZHC 2342
Case: [2021] NZHC 2342
Decision Date: 8 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Richard Renson, appeals against his conviction for cultivation of cannabis. The appeal concerns the admissibility of evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his property by police officers. The appellant contends that the search was unlawful and that the District Court should not have admitted the evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The High Court was required to determine whether the warrantless search was lawful and, if not, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the Evidence Act 2006.

The High Court found that the warrantless search was not lawful as the police officers did not turn their minds to the practicability of obtaining a search warrant by telephone. The officers genuinely believed they had the authority to conduct a warrantless search, but the warrant preference principle requires a cogent reason why consideration of alternatives is unrealistic, which did not exist in this case. The Court held that the warrantless search breached section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which affirms the "right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

Under section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006, the Court had to determine whether the exclusion of the improperly obtained evidence was proportionate to the impropriety. The Court found that the intrusion into a private dwelling weighed heavily in favour of excluding the evidence. Although there was no deliberate, reckless, or bad faith conduct, the omission to consider obtaining a search warrant by telephone warranted exclusion. The interest in an effective and credible system of justice requiring police compliance with the laws relating to warrantless searches outweighed the interest in the admissibility of the evidence in this case.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed Mr Renson’s conviction, and ordered his acquittal.

Orders