District Court, Court of Appeal acknowledge arbitrary detention, ‘minor’ assault by officer
In proceedings arising from an incident involving a driver stopped close to a police alcohol checkpoint, the New Zealand Supreme Court affirmed the findings that the officer breached s 22 but not ss 23(1)(b) and (5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).
In the evening of 25 December 2021, an officer on duty saw the applicant in Butterfield v R [2026] NZSC 106 performing a U‑turn before the police alcohol checkpoint. The police vehicle followed the applicant and required him to stop.
After administering a breath screening test that returned a non‑evidential reading of 762 micrograms, exceeding the legal limit of 250 micrograms, the police officer wanted to lead the applicant back to the checkpoint for an evidential breath test, blood samples, or both.
According to the officer, the applicant became agitated and attempted to drink from a bottle in his vehicle. The officer took the bottle from the applicant’s hands, discarded it, pushed him against the car, and handcuffed him. The applicant’s forearms were cut and bruised.
The officer drove the applicant back to the checkpoint and removed the handcuffs. Upon receiving legal advice, the applicant refused to submit to evidential breath or blood testing.
In 2024, before the District Court, Judge Elkin found no breaches of the applicant’s rights under ss 23(1)(b) and (5) of NZBORA. The judge acknowledged the police officer’s power to arrest the applicant and return him to the checkpoint.
However, Judge Elkin found that the officer did not actually exercise that power and instead arbitrarily detained the applicant under s 22 of the NZBORA and engaged in a “very minor and somewhat inconsequential” assault by pulling the bottle from the applicant’s hands.
Ultimately, Judge Elkin did not exclude the evidence of the applicant’s refusal to take the evidential test, given the absence of a causal link between the officer’s s 22 breach and the applicant’s declining to submit to testing.
The applicant pleaded guilty to refusing to give a blood sample.
In 2025, before the District Court, Judge Zohrab sentenced the applicant to six months’ disqualification and rejected his application for permanent name suppression.
On appeal, the applicant challenged his conviction, his sentence, and the denial of permanent name suppression.
Regarding the conviction, the Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court judge’s findings that:
The appeal court saw no error in Judge Zohrab’s refusal to substitute the disqualification with a community-based sentence and the denial of permanent name suppression, given the lack of proof that the publication of the applicant’s name would constitute extreme hardship.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal. In his proposed appeal, he sought to challenge the s 23(5) findings, causation, his sentence on the ground of an alleged miscarriage of justice, and the decision regarding name suppression.
The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal upon determining that the applicant failed to meet the relevant criteria. The Supreme Court found:
The Supreme Court saw no reason to reconsider, doubt, or criticise:
To help the applicant prepare for publication, the Supreme Court maintained the interim suppression of his name, address, occupation, and identifying particulars until 2 p.m. on 14 August 2026.
Here are some other recent Supreme Court of New Zealand decisions involving motor vehicles.
Seeing no apparent miscarriage of justice and no error in an assessment of the position advanced, the Supreme Court issued a 15 April 2026 decision denying an application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal of New Zealand’s dismissal of an appeal against a conviction of murder using a car.
The Supreme Court made a 16 October 2025 decision dismissing two applicants’ requests for leave to appeal a judgment regarding the length of their disqualifications from driving following multiple charges of driving with excess alcohol under s 56 of the Land Transport Act 1998.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
