CrimJ Part 2 Cases
Terms in this set (31)
R v Ngan 
Car crash, sunglasses case searched (as police believed there was drug money). Found drugs.
Held: police were acting alwfully under their powers.
Edwards v Police 
Edwards riding motorbike dangerously, police followed to house and discovered he had been drinking. He refused breath tests, so taken to station.
Held: had implied license to enter property BUT was acting unlawfully as no formal arrest was made.
S 3O: yes, excluded - major right breached, only minor charge escaped.
Section 315 Crimes Act
Police can arrest if they have good cause to suspect an imprisonable offence has been committed.
Requirements of a legal arrest:
- words of arrest
Arahanga v R 
Police told Arahanga he was under arrest, grabbed his shirt, but he ran away and didn't acquiesce.
Held: still an arrest, as had made clear that he wasn't free to go.
Ahmed v R 
Citizens arrests: escort (Ginger) detained by Ahmed as he thought she had run off with his money.
R v Goodwin 
Questioned for 6 hours, never told he was under arrest.
Held: not arrested, only detained, as it was never made clear to Goodwin that he was under arrest. So, NZBORA rights don't apply.
AG v Hewitt 
Good cause to suspect: officer must know (or suspect) it was Hewitt who committed the crime AT THE TIME of arrest (not retrospectively).
Butler v Police 
Officer went to Butler's to check on him (on bail). Urine test returned positive for drugs, so officer arrested and searched - found cannabis plants.
Held: officer had clear reasonable grounds to suspect = search lawful.
Section 114 Land Transport Act:
Police power to require driver to stop and give details (name, address, DOB, occupation, phone). Must stay stopped for reasonable time, but no longer than 15 mins.
R v Casey 
Casey driving dangerously, pulled over but told to wait until another officer arrived. Argued wasn't told reason for his being detained.
Held: this was only making enquiries, not a detention, so was lawful.
Dryden v Police 
Drunk man in takeaway drive-through - police moved his car and took him to squad car.
Held: detention was unlawful as only had power to stop and breath test him, not to remove him from vehicle.
S 30: evidence admitted regardless, as exclusion not proportionate to the breach.
Section 95 Land Transport Act:
If person fails breath/blood test, and has been previously convicted of drink driving, or driven 40km or more over the limit, license must be suspended for 28 days.
Section 96 Land Transport Act:
If person was driving while disqualified, or without a license, or while drunk and with priors, vehicle must be impounded for 28 days.
R v Mallinson 
'without delay' does not mean immediately. Right to instruct a lawyer can therefore have some reasonable delay.
Barrie v R 
Sought to consult Sydney lawyer. There is NO RIGHT to counsel of choice if this would cause undue delay.
Panapa v R 
Asked to speak to lawyer, but disregarded by police.
Held: he had NOT waived his right to lawyer - it is a fundamental right, police should have tried to facilitate his request. So, breach of NZBORA.
Howden v Ministry of Transport 
Drunk, hungry, fish and chip shop. Police follows, goes up driveway to breath test him.
Held: NO implied license to go on and breath test, therefore unlawfully obtained.
R v Bradley (1997)
Police climbed back balcony looking for suspects. This was NOT covered by implied license, as not normal mode of entry. However, woman consented to them searching (they found drugs under lino), so was lawful.
Hamed v R 
Urewera raids: set up cameras all around.
Held: unlawfully obtained, as no implied incense to enter land and set up cameras.
Tararo v R 
Undercover cop went to buy drugs from house - bought from front door. Filmed whole thing.
Held: still had an implied license despite filming, as filming was part of job to substantiate the evidence. So, was lawful.
Ashby v R 
Call received saying Ashby could be heard crying out from inside his garage. Police forced entry, and searched the house.
Held: lawful, as police had duty to ensure everyone was safe. Reasonable force could therefore be used.
Swain v R 
Swain stopped for speeding, was nervous to leave motorbike behind. Police found this suspicious and searched and found drugs.
Held: s 20 SAS Act allows warrantless search if reasonable grounds to believe may find drugs and warrant was not practicable (as was the case here, at 9pm on Sunday).
Definition of 'search':
Where police activity "invades a reasonable expectation of privacy" - Hamed v R 
R v Pratt 
Strip-searched in alleyway by police in middle of the day.
Held: unreasonable/unlawful to search someone like that - should take private place if strip search.
Wanoa v R 
After being pulled over, Wanoa said "yes" he minded if police looked in his bag.
Held: he did not consent to the search. Police were unclear to him.
S 30: evidence still admitted despite improperly obtained.
Sections 32 and 33 Policing Act:
Constable may take identifying particulars of someone in lawful custody (photo, fingerprints, details).
6 months imprisonment or $5000 fine if don't comply with this.
Duties of person making an arrest:
1. Inform them of the reason for arrest;
2. Inform them of right to consult a lawyer without delay;
3. Bring them before court as soon as reasonably possible.
R v Balsey 
Officer went round back, smelled cannabis, so forced entry to garage where found cannabis plants. Unlawful, as breached implied license.
S 30: exclusion would be disproportionate to the impropriety, because breach was minor, crime was serious, evidence was crucial.
Lorigan v R 
Police videoed driveway entry, using night vision cameras.
Held: this was a search under the test in Hamed (invades reasonable expectation of privacy), but was lawful.
R v Underwood 
House searched, found with indecent images of children.
Held: the more serious the case, the stronger the case for admission of the evidence. Here, crime was serious, breach was not. So, admitted.