CONTEXT

Defendant
- Compare s24(1)(b) with s25(1): “deliver” is listed with the words “sell, deliver or send”. The words
surrounding “deliver” infer that the actions are done intentionally. “Deliver” is therefore limited to
something that is done intentionally. This supports the defendants narrow limb (esjusdiem generis)
- s13 involves earning a profit from delivering an item. This suggests things that are ‘delivered; are things
that have a purposeful transaction
- Because words in statutes are used consistently, ‘deliver’ in the context of this statute indicates that it is an
intentional act that has a thought process behind it, supporting the defenders narrow limb.
- s13(b) uses take instead of deliver, the prosecution could argue that “take” is also different from “deliver”.
Taking something involves removing it from its original resting place. “Deliver” therefore, can be
something else, eg taking something from its original resting place with the intention of giving it to
someone else.

Prosecution
- s4 to ‘deliver’ it suggests means taking an item to a particular place, it does not suggest that this has to be
done with intention, thus supporting the prosecutions wide limb
- ?

PURPOSE
The purpose of this statute is to regulate the treasure hunting industry.

Prosecution
Upholding the purpose would suggest the wide meaning, to not allow amateurs search and discover treasure,
and in doing so not taking proper care of the artefact. If we allowed the narrow limb this would significantly
undermine the statutory regime. Treasure hunting could become standard behaviour in NZ, in which people
could search and perhaps damage special artefacts that and crucial to NZ history. Allowing treasure hunting
to be lawfully carried out is contrary to the statutory purpose and could lead to a proliferation of treasure
hunters in NZ, also possibly being in danger of damaging items that are possibly taonga. Furthermore, even
though she unintentionally delivered it, the acts purpose is to stop any amateur treasure hunters thus the act
would still want to prosecute her as Remurea is just staring out treasure hunting and would come under this
label which the act is trying to prevent.

Defendant:
The purpose of statute was that Parliament didn’t want anyone intentionally delivering things for profit.
Thus, in this case, Remurea wasn’t intending to take it to museum and she wasn’t intending of getting profit
from delivering the artefact. Also the purpose of the act upholds the narrow limb as Remurea didn’t go
through the right procedure in “delivering” the artefact to the museum under s26(1) of the Act, thus adopting
the narrow limb would fulfil the purpose of the act by ensuring that treasure that is found is delivered
correctly to the right source?

Conclusion
The purpose of the statute clearly supports the prosecutions wide limb, as it shows the purpose of the Act is
to protect against amateur treasure hunters. As the actions carried out by Remurea perhaps endangered the
precious artefact the defendant will be likely prosecuted in the light of the purpose of the Act.
Millie