Legal Research
Cases
Roberts v Police

Roberts v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 1160 10 May 2024

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Unlawful Search and Seizure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-13

[2024] NZHC 1160

BETWEEN
CHANCE COLVIN ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 May 2024

Appearances:

L A Elborough for Appellant A Alcock for Respondent

Judgment:

10 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against–pre-trial ruling as to admissibility of evidence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 10 May 2024 at 10.00 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
L A Elborough, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal Ltd, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

COLVIN ROBERTS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1160 [10 May 2024]

[1] Mr Colvin Roberts faces a charge of being in possession of cannabis for supply.1 The charge was laid after a police officer discovered a plastic bucket containing cannabis plant in the boot of Mr Colvin Roberts’ vehicle when she searched it on 22 June 2022. This occurred when the officer impounded the vehicle after she had seen Mr Colvin Roberts driving it whilst he was suspended from driving.

[2] Mr Colvin Roberts challenged the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that the search of his vehicle was unlawful and unreasonable. He contended the search constituted a breach of his right under s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

[3] In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2024, Judge K B F Saunders held that the search of the vehicle was unlawful and unreasonable but that the evidence was nevertheless admissible.2 Mr Colvin Roberts seeks leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision under s 215(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[4] The police do not oppose leave to appeal being granted. The evidence is in any event central to the prosecution case. I therefore grant leave.

The evidence

[5] The sole witness called for the prosecution at the pre-trial hearing was Senior Constable Casey Walker. She has been a police officer for approximately 18 years, the last 14 of which she has spent in road policing duty. Mr Colvin Roberts and his mother gave evidence for the defence.

[6] Senior Constable Walker said that on 21 June 2022 she was off duty and went to a supermarket in Cambridge. Whilst there, she saw Mr Colvin Roberts and his partner, both of whom she knew through previous dealings in her role as a police officer. She also knew that they were both currently suspended from driving. When Senior Constable Walker left the supermarket, she saw Mr Colvin Roberts and his partner get into a motor vehicle in the carpark. Mr Colvin Roberts’ partner then drove the vehicle away.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f).
2 Police v Colvin Roberts [2024] NZDC 3131.

[7] On the following day, Senior Constable Walker said she was driving past the address where Mr Colvin Roberts was living with his mother. As she passed the address, she saw Mr Colvin Roberts drive out of…

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 Roberts v Police

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Police [2024] NZHC 1160
Case: [2024] NZHC 1160
Decision Date: 10 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roberts v Police [2024] NZHC 1160 involves an appeal by Colvin Roberts against a pre-trial ruling that deemed the evidence obtained from an unlawful search of his impounded vehicle admissible. Roberts was charged with possession of cannabis for supply after a police officer discovered a plastic bucket containing cannabis in the boot of his vehicle. He challenged the admissibility of the evidence, arguing that the search was unlawful and violated his rights under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The District Court initially ruled that the search was unlawful but still admissible. Justice Lang, in the High Court, granted Roberts leave to appeal against this decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the inventory search was lawful and, if so, whether it was conducted reasonably under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The court examined the established law on inventory searches, including relevant appellate authority. The court found that the police have the authority to conduct inventory searches of impounded vehicles both to protect the property and to ensure the safety of third parties who will be handling the vehicle. The court concluded that Senior Constable Walker's search was lawful because it aimed to protect third parties from potential dangers within the vehicle. Furthermore, the search was not conducted unreasonably, as it did not breach Roberts' rights under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

In conclusion, the appeal against the pre-trial ruling was dismissed. The evidence obtained from the unlawful search was deemed admissible at Roberts' trial. However, the court noted that the broad power to search for dangerous items as endorsed in Casey v R [2021] NZCA 29 should be reconsidered to ensure it is not applied excessively. The court’s decision reaffirms the admissibility of the evidence in this specific case but leaves room for potential restrictions on the police's power to search for dangerous items in future cases.

Orders