New Zealand: Exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in civil proceedings

Introduction

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.

Facts

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 Nonetheless, Mr Marwood challenged the search warrant issued under the now-repealed s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (SPA).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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
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 Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.