Wedge v Police - [2023] NZHC 2773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2023-463-34

[2023] NZHC 2773

BETWEEN
CAITLYN WEDGE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 2 October 2023

Appearances:

A Spense for Appellant

T T Taane for Respondent

Judgment:

4 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 4 October 2023 at 4.00pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga
Law Aid International, Mount Maunganui

WEDGE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2773 [4 October 2023]

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court, Ms Wedge was found guilty by Judge W Lawson of being in possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale.1 She appeals against conviction that the basis that the police obtained the evidence against her by means of an unlawful search of her motor vehicle. She says the evidence was therefore improperly obtained and the appropriate response would have been for the Judge to exclude the evidence under s 30(4) of the Evidence Act 2006. In that event, she should have been acquitted.

Background

[2] At 3.45 am on 15 June 2023, a police patrol vehicle conducted a routine stop of a vehicle Ms Wedge was driving in Papamoa. She initially provided false information regarding her name and address. When the police learned Ms Wedge’s true identity, they discovered she was in breach of her bail conditions by driving at that time of night and was also driving whilst disqualified. The latter meant that the police were required to impound Ms Wedge’s vehicle for 28 days under s 96(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

[3] Before the vehicle was towed away to where it was to be stored, the police conducted an inventory search of her vehicle. Inside a cookie container in the front passenger side of the vehicle they found a quantity of cannabis bud material. They then exercised their powers to conduct a warrantless search under s 20 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (SSA). This resulted in the discovery of approximately 30 more grams of cannabis bud material, a set of scales that contained cannabis residue and several plastic bags. One of the plastic bags contained approximately one gram of cannabis. The police also found a “tick book” of the type commonly associated with the sale of drugs.

The Judge’s decision

[4] At the beginning of the trial the Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence the police had found in Ms Wedge’s vehicle. In an oral ruling given at the end of the hearing the Judge reviewed recent decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal relating to the powers of the

1 New Zealand Police v Wedge [2023] NZDC 11027.

police to conduct an inventory search.2 He then held that the police were lawfully entitled to conduct an inventory search of Ms Wedge’s vehicle. The Judge’s reasons are encapsulated in the following paragraphs 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 Wedge v Police

Details

AGLC: Wedge v Police [2023] NZHC 2773
Case: [2023] NZHC 2773
Decision Date: 4 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry, the appeal of Caitlyn Wedge against her conviction for possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale was heard. The central issue was whether the evidence obtained by the police during an inventory search of Ms Wedge's vehicle was obtained lawfully. The appeal hinged on whether the police's warrantless search of the vehicle was justified and whether the evidence should have been excluded under the Evidence Act 2006. The court was required to determine the legitimacy of the police's actions during the inventory search and the subsequent warrantless search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.

The court examined the legal framework governing inventory searches and warrantless searches under the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, respectively. It considered whether the police were justified in opening the cookie container, which contained cannabis bud material, during the inventory search. The court found that the police had a legitimate reason to open the container, as they could not ascertain its contents based on the container's appearance alone. The court further determined that the police were entitled to conduct a warrantless search under the Search and Surveillance Act, as there was a risk of evidential material being lost or tampered with if the vehicle was stored by a third party without immediate inspection. Consequently, the court concluded that the evidence was obtained lawfully and that excluding it would not be proportionate to the alleged impropriety.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the police were entitled to conduct both the inventory search and the subsequent warrantless search, and that the evidence obtained was admissible. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was unsuccessful, and Ms Wedge's conviction for possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale was confirmed.

Orders