Originally Posted by
davereid
We certainly don't have a single constitution document in the American Style.
But the 1986 Constitution Act ties together a number of separate Acts, all of which taken together form a constitution. This includes the 1990 Bill of Rights Act.
It also Enumerates the Rights of Citizens against the state; enacts into law some of New Zealand's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Basically, New Zealanders have the right to be able to go about their business without being subject to random search and seizure.
The Police and Government have taken the view that the Bill of Rights is not supreme legislation, indeed that was how it was written.
But the Courts are not always accepting that principal, indeed they have regularly taken the view that it is de-facto supreme legislation, and can only be overturned with extreme cause.
So far, no one has ever challenged traffic stops.
But there have been several very quiet ruling about Fisheries.
Fisheries officers have for many years conducted random searches of vehicles, boats and people who they believe have been fishing. Generally speaking fisheries officers rely on section 192 of the Fisheries Act , which enables them to conduct warrant-less searches.
They exercised this right against United Fisheries, when they seized a swath of records and computer equipment.
Interestingly, the Judge was not convinced that Fisheries had overstepped the mark, as they had some good evidence that the law had been broken. But nonetheless, he found the seizure to be in-conflict with the Bill of Rights. He ordered the Ministry of Fisheries NOT to examine the seized equipment or records, until they had proven their case to the court. The main reason being, in a very complex judgement, that their may be material seized that is not relevant to the "due cause" used to justify the search.
In another ruling, a man was stopped at a fisheries checkpoint.
He refused to allow his vehicle to be searched, and Fisheries officers arrested him for obstruction, and searched his vehicle anyway.
The court ruled that refusing to allow a search is not obstruction. If the officer has the legal power to conduct the search he can do it without the authority of the vehicle owner. If he does not have the legal authority, then it is not obstruction to deny the search.
It would only become obstruction, if the search was being conducted legally, and the vehicle owner attempted to stop it.
In this case, the court also found that the fisheries officer did not have "due cause" to search the vehicle. The fact that the chap had been to the beach was not due cause to believe he had broken fisheries legislation.
The point of the rant ?
The search and surveillance bill was introduced as the government was very aware that many of the search and seizure events conducted every day by law enforcement officials were possibly illegal. Now its been sent back. Random stopping of individual groups, may well breach the Bill of Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Watch this space as they say.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks