Hearing:
14-18, 21, 22 October 2013; 29 November 2013; 13, 19 and

22 March 2014

Appearances:

CS Henry for the Plaintiffs (on all days exept 18 October 2013) AM Powell and E Devine for the First to Fourteenth Defendants V Casey for the Fifteenth Defendant

VR Siemer in person (on 18 October 2013 only)

Judgment:

11 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2014 at 3 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SIEMER & ORSv SPARTAN NEWS LIMITED & ORS [2014] NZHC 3175 [11 December 2014]

AND S SIEMER Third Plaintiff

AND

K.S. BROWN First Defendant

AND

M PALMA
Second Defendant

AND

A LOVELOCK Third Defendant

AND

JANE THEW Fourth Defendant

AND

REECE SIRL Fifth Defendant

AND

JULIE FOSTER Sixth Defendant

AND

JOHN MILLER Seventh Defendant

AND

DAVID THOMAS Eighth Defendant

AND

BRETT OTTO Ninth Defendant

AND

TREVOR FRANKLIN Tenth Defendant

AND

JOHN TAYLOR Eleventh Defendant

AND

JUERGEN ARNDT Twelfth Defendant

AND

KERWIN STEWART Thirteenth Defendant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Fourteenth Defendant

AND

B J REID
Fifteenth Defendant

Table of Contents
Paragraph

Number

Introduction

[1]

Summary of the plaintiffs’ claims [6]

Recusal [10]

The issues to be determined [16]

Background facts [17]

The application for the Clansman Terrace search warrant [21]

The applicable principles of law [28]

Was the warrant invalidly obtained because the application provided insufficient relevant information to justify it? [37]

Did the application adequately disclose allegations of particular offending? [37]

Did the application justify a search of the subject premises for evidence? [42]

Conclusion as to sufficiency of information [43]

Did the warrant disclose the date on which it was issued and, if not, does that render the warrant invalid despite s

204 of the SPA?
[44]

Conclusions on disclosure of date of issue on warrant [62]

Was the warrant a general warrant and, therefore, invalid? [65]

General warrants invalid – the plaintiffs’ argument and

the law
[65]

Did the warrant contain a sufficient description of the alleged offending? [69]

Was the description of the items of which seizure was authorised sufficiently specific to provide reasonable limitations on the search of the premises and the seizure of private property? [75]

Did the warrant purport to authorise the seizure of items not reasonably connected to the alleged offence or offences referred to? [75]

Discussion [81]

Conclusion that warrant was not invalid for generality [86]

Was the warrant obtained in bad faith as a pretext for searching Mr Siemer’s home and seizing his property for some ulterior purpose? [87]

Overall conclusion on allegation that the search warrant was invalid [91]

The plaintiffs’ tort and…

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 Siemer v Brown

Details

AGLC: Siemer v Brown [2014] NZHC 3175
Case: [2014] NZHC 3175
Decision Date: 11 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Siemer v Brown, the plaintiffs alleged that the search of their home by Police officers, pursuant to a warrant, was unlawful and unreasonable. They sought damages for trespass to land and goods, breach of privacy, false imprisonment, intimidation, conversion, and breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The defendants denied any wrongdoing and claimed statutory immunity from some of the claims. The plaintiffs also argued that the warrant was invalid because the application for it contained insufficient information and that the warrant did not adequately disclose allegations of particular offending. The court found that the warrant application contained sufficient information to justify the warrant and that the warrant itself was not invalid. The court held that the search was conducted lawfully and reasonably, and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants. The plaintiffs were not entitled to remedies and the defendants were awarded costs.

Orders