Snow v Police - [2019] NZHC 2782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2019-412-000016

[2019] NZHC 2782

BETWEEN
CRAIG ANDREW SNOW

Plaintiff

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Defendant

Hearing: 23 September 2019

Appearances:

C M Andersen for the Appellant R P Bates for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] Mr Snow faces charges of possession of cannabis, possession of ammunition and possession of a firearm. The charges were based on evidence obtained on 20 April 2018 pursuant to a search warrant.

[2] In the District Court, Mr Snow challenged the admissibility of that evidence. Judge Crosbie ruled the evidence was admissible.1 His Honour found that the search warrant was invalid and the evidence improperly obtained. Despite that, his Honour found the evidence was admissible under the balancing test in s 30 Evidence Act 2006. Mr Snow appeals that decision.

1 Police v Snow [2019] NZDC 6039.

SNOW v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2782 [30 October 2019]

Leave to appeal and principles on appeal

[3] Section 79 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides for the making of orders as to admissibility of evidence. Appeals against pre-trial evidential decisions made under s 79 in Judge-alone cases are governed by s 215 Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Leave of the first appeal Court is required.

[4] The evidence in question is fundamental to the prosecution case against Mr Snow. His is not a case where the issue is best dealt with by an appeal post-conviction. There is no reason why leave should not be granted. There is no opposition to leave being granted. I grant it accordingly.

[5] The appeal proceeds by way of an oral hearing and, pursuant to s 221 Criminal Procedure Act, the Court has broad powers to confirm, vary or set aside the decision subject to the appeal.

[6] An appeal under s 221 is a general appeal. Admissibility decisions involve questions of law, not discretion. Accordingly, I must make my own assessment as to the admissibility of the evidence.2

Background

[7] Section 6 Search and Surveillance Act 2012 provides for an issuing officer to issue a search warrant:

6 Issuing officer may issue search warrant

An issuing officer may issue a search warrant, in relation to a place, vehicle, or other thing, on application by a constable if the issuing officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds—

(a)to suspect that an offence specified in the application and punishable by imprisonment has been committed, or is being committed, or will be committed; and

(b)to believe that the search will find evidential material in respect of the offence in or on the place, vehicle, or other thing specified in the application.

2 R v Gwaze [2010] NZSC 52, [2010] 3 NZCR 734; Hodgkinson v R [2010] NZCA 547 at [47].

[8] An application was made for the issue of three search warrants on 9 April 2018. The application was made for warrants enabling the Police to search places at:
(a) 12 Panmure…

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 Snow v Police

Details

AGLC: Snow v Police [2019] NZHC 2782
Case: [2019] NZHC 2782
Decision Date: 30 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Andrew Snow appeals a decision of Judge Crosbie in the Dunedin District Court that evidence obtained by police pursuant to a search warrant was admissible. The search warrant was for a property at 10 Panmure Ave, Calton Hill, Dunedin City. The police found three grams of cannabis, a sawn-off double barrel shotgun and 39 rounds of 12-gauge ammunition. Mr Snow was charged with possession of cannabis, possession of ammunition and possession of a firearm. Mr Snow sought to exclude the evidence obtained by the police on the basis that the search warrant was invalid. Judge Crosbie ruled the evidence was admissible. The appeal is dismissed. The District Court Judge did not err in ruling that the evidence obtained by the police was admissible. The information in the warrant application was sufficient to satisfy the issuing officer that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the offences of selling or supplying cannabis had been or were being committed and that cannabis, and evidence of the commission of any offence of supply/possession for supply of cannabis, as detailed in the application, would be found at 10 Panmure Ave. The evidence obtained from the execution of the search warrant was of high probative value, relevant to the case and reliable. The evidence obtained is crucial to the Crown case. Without that evidence there will be no evidence to support the conviction of the charges the defendant faces. There is a public interest in conviction where there is evidence of offending. The public interest in allowing the evidence to be admitted in such a case is stronger the more serious the offending it relates to. Here, there are particularly serious charges as to the possession of the sawn-off shotgun and cartridges.

Orders