IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WHANGAREI CRI 2004-088-@81123 ‘TE MARAMA O HAURAKI (INC) Informant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Defendant Hearing: 28 May 2004 Appearances: Informant in Person P Magee for Defendant Judgment: 28 May 2004 MINUTE OF JUDGE H M TAUMAUNU [1] | The informations charge that the New Zealand Police has committed four separate offences, and the informations each name the New Zealand Police as the defendant. [2] The word ‘defendant’ is defined in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, and ‘it means: a) Any person charged with an offence includes any person against whom an order is sought and proceedings commenced by way ofcomplaint, and any person on whom a notice. of prosecution has been served pursuant to s20(a) of this Act. b) _Inrrelation to an infringement offence, it sets out the position as to a defendant in that case, and then finally in that interpretation, paragraph at sub-paragraph (d), it defines a defendant as a Crown organisation, if proceedings are brought against that organisation for an offence referred to in s6 of the Crown Organisations Criminal Liability Act 2002. [3] Section 4 of that Act, that is the Crown Organisations Criminal Liability Act 2002, does include a reference to the New Zealand Police as a Government related organisation, and a Government related organisation is defined as a Crown organisation in that same section. In s6 of that Act it states: “A Crown organisation may be prosecuted (by the bringing of proceedings in the manner provided for in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957) for any of the following offences: (@) an offence against section 80 of the Building Act 1991: (®) _ an offence under section 49 or section 50 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992." It is also noted in that section that the liability of a Crown organisation that arises independently of that section to prosecution for an offence is not affected. [4] The long and short of it is simply that the New Zealand Police is not a defendant and not capable of being 2 defendant in these proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act. However, it is not to say that the member or members of the New Zealand Police who these charges are aimed at cannot be charged by way of information. {5] So I intend to adjourn the matter for say four weeks, that shoutd give the informant plenty of time to look into this particular issue, and then the matter can be recalled. It is going to need probably some time to be argued, becanse I imagine if an application for amendment is sought, it will be opposed.[6] The matter is going to be adjoumed to 15 June 2004 at 10.00am, The informations as they are are fundamentally flawed. f an application is not made to correct them on 15 June, then I suspect that they will be dismissed. {7} All matters are adjourned to 15 June at 10,00am. District Court Judge Solicitors: PJ Smith, Crown Solicitor,IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WHANGAREI CRN: 408890500233-6 TE MARAMA O HAURAKI Informant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Defendant Hearing: 15 June 2004 Appearances: D Benson for Informant P Magee for Defendant Judgment: 15 June 2004 RULING OF JUDGE T H EVERITT [1] Mr Daniel Benson appears today for Te Marama O Hauraki (Inc), and informations laid in this Court against an entity named New Zealand Police, care of Whangarei Police, 91/97 Cameron Street, Whangarei. [2] When the informations came on before me on 26 May, I pointed out to Mr Benson that the New Zealand Police is not an entity which can have proceedings issued against it. Judge Taumaunu also came to the same conclusion on 28 May. On 26 May I gave Mr Benson time to look at that, and no application is made today; Mr Benson has confirmed that.[3] Accordingly all informations are dismissed, as there being no recognisable person by way of a defendant known to law. Judge Solicitors: PJ Smith, Crown Solicitor’s Officer, Whangarei ‘Te Marama O Hauraki (Inc), Whangarei