New Zealand: Exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in civil proceedings

Last Updated: 21 March 2017
Article by Shane Campbell


On 26 October 2016, the Supreme Court released its decision in Marwood v Commissioner of Police [2016] NZSC 139. This decision required the Court to determine whether New Zealand courts have jurisdiction to exclude improperly obtained evidence in civil proceedings and, if so, whether the jurisdiction should be exercised on the facts of the case before it.

This comment relates only to the majority decision of William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ. Elias CJ delivered a lone dissenting judgment. However, in the interests of clarity there is no need to refer to that minority decision.

The essential decision

The majority of the Supreme Court held that the court did have jurisdiction to exclude the evidence in cases where the evidence was obtained in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) or otherwise an abuse of process. This analysis rested on an interpretation of ss 7 and 11 of the Evidence Act 2006 (Act).

The implications of this decision for civil litigation generally are not clear. However, where any evidence has been obtained in breach of NZBORA, or otherwise in circumstances amounting to an abuse of process, exclusion may be available. This may lend itself to evidence being obtained by an employee or other person obtaining evidence in breach of a contract, evidence being obtained by fraud, or any number of other improper modes of obtaining evidence.

In all likelihood, the decision will have a minimal impact for all civil decisions which do not involve evidence being obtained by the coercive powers of the State. Nonetheless, the residual abuse of category process may provide fertile fodder for exclusionary arguments moving forward.


After receiving a tip-off, Police searched Mr Karl Marwood's house in Taupo. In the course of that search, Police found a reasonably commercial cannabis operation including cannabis and scales. As a result of what was found in the course of the search, Mr Marwood was charged with cultivating and possessing cannabis for the purpose of sale, selling cannabis, and stealing electricity. After the search operation, Mr Marwood made admissions as to criminal conduct. Nonetheless, Mr Marwood challenged the search warrant issued under the now-repealed s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (SPA).

For a warrant to be validly issued under s 198 of the SPA, there must have been reasonable grounds to believe that a cannabis growing operation was underway at Mr Marwood's house. In this case, the District Court judge reached the conclusion that the tip-off amounted to no more than a suspicion of offending. Judge Bouchier noted that police had made no inquiries about the reliability of the tip-off and considered that the warrant was invalid and the search contravened s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

As a result, her Honour concluded that it would be a proportionate response to exclude the evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 (Act). Having done so meant there was no longer any admissible evidence against Mr Harwood with the result that the charges against him had to be discharged under s 347 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The Commissioner of Police then commenced proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA) seeking profit forfeiture orders against Mr Marwood, his partner Ms Erana King and a trust associated with the two of them, the Perrin Trust. The proceeding under the CPRA effectively alleged that Mr Marwood and Ms King received substantial benefits as a result of significant criminal activity. The proceeding relied in large part on the evidence which was excluded in the criminal proceedings, in respect of which Mr Marwood was discharged. The Supreme Court was therefore tasked with resolving whether the Commissioner of Police could rely on that previously excluded evidence.

It is worth noting that s 94 of the CPRA provides a qualified rule of evidence exclusion where evidence obtained under powers contained in the CPRA is improperly obtained. That does not apply to this case, however, as the evidence was obtained as a result of a criminal investigation. The CPRA is silent in these situations.

Historical development of the law

The Court then embarked on a review of the historical position relating to exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. The detailed overview of the law may be summarised as follows:

  1. the general position at common law was that illegally obtained evidence was admissible in both criminal and civil proceedings;
  2. in England the law developed such that there was a limited ability to exclude improperly obtained evidence, though the courts there rejected a general discretion to exclude such evidence;
  3. the law in New Zealand set a different course, by which judges were entitled to exclude improperly obtained evidence – the jurisdiction for which derived from either, or both, of a standalone discretion to exclude, or as part of the abuse of process jurisdiction; and
  4. despite this development in the sphere of the criminal law of evidence, there was no corresponding development in relation to evidence in civil proceedings, although there were certain principles relating to return of improperly obtained privileged information and evidence obtained amounting to a contempt of court.

The enactment of NZBORA was somewhat of a paradigm shift in the way courts approached this issue. Therefore, post-enactment, an issue the courts had to confront the issue of how to deal with evidence obtained in breach of s 21 of NZBORA.

Initially the courts held that the common law position continued to apply, but adopted a prima facie exclusionary rule by which such evidence was 'out' unless there were good reasons why this should not be the case. The ground again shifted, however, after the Court of Appeal decided Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA) [Baigent's Case] by which it was established that exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in criminal cases amounted to a remedy for breach of a right secured by NZBORA. Ultimately the New Zealand courts moved to a balancing exercise which was founded by the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Shaheed [2002] 2 NZLR 377 (CA) by which evidence would be excluded where to do so would be necessary to vindicate the impinged right balanced against other relevant factors.

Not long after Shaheed was decided, Parliament enacted the Act, including s 30 which expressly deals with the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence. However, even the Act contemplates resorting to common law in certain situations (see ss 10–12A). Therefore, in Fan v R [2012] NZCA 114, [2012] 3 NZLR 29 the Court of Appeal had to decide whether there was a residual discretion to exclude evidence in criminal cases on the basis of unfairness where the threshold of exclusion in s 30 is not met. The Supreme Court did not have to determine the correctness of the Court of Appeal decision in this case.

All of the above issues, however, relate to criminal cases. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the courts possessed a power to exclude in civil cases in light of the fact that s 30 of the Act applies exclusively to civil proceedings.

The decision on exclusion in civil cases

The Supreme Court began its analysis by commenting on the decision of the High Court and Court of Appeal as follows:

  1. High Court: Cooper J concluded that ss 7 and 30 of the Act did not oust NZBORA and that s 12 (evidential matters not provided for) applied on the basis that s 30 (improperly obtained evidence) only applied to criminal proceedings. In his Honour's view, evidence excluded under s 21 of NZBORA could amount to evidence excluded under another enactment for the purposes of s 7(1)(b) of the Act.
  2. Court of Appeal: the Court of Appeal essayed the history of the Act and concluded that because NZBORA does not expressly, or by necessary implication, provide for a remedy of exclusion then it is insufficient for the purposes of s 7(1)(b) of the Act. Further, s 12 was no answer because there was no legislative lacuna – there was no need for a s 30 equivalent for civil proceedings because the position was adequately addressed by ss 7 and 8 of the Act.

The decision of the Supreme Court on the jurisdictional enquiry can be summarised as follows:

  1. prior to the enactment of the Act in proceedings akin to the present, it would have been open to a judge to exclude evidence which had been obtained in breach of NZBORA;
  2. evidence so excluded could be said to have been excluded under another enactment, being NZBORA, for the purposes of s 7(1)(b) of the Act;
  3. the Court of Appeal's approach to the interpretation of s 7(1)(b) is a reading down of that section;
  4. the remedy for exclusion is part of the inherent and implied powers of a court to exclude evidence obtained in breach of process or in breach of NZBORA.

The Supreme Court therefore concluded that there was jurisdiction to exclude the evidence.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Shane Campbell
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions