Application for suspect compulsion order — bodily samples — objection on cultural grounds — guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure — Police v McIsaac High Court, Auckland, M399/01, 3/5/2001 — R v L High Court, Auckland, T277/97, 9/4/1998 — Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, s 13 — United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Persons — Te Tiriti o Waitangi — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 — Privacy Act 1993. The defendants faced a charge of aggravated robbery, and the police applied for a suspect compulsion order forcing them to provide DNA samples. The defendants had provided DNA samples previously, but the police had disposed of them by accident. The defendants argued that the request for further samples was unfair and unreasonable, and also objected on cultural grounds, arguing that their DNA was tapu and to take a sample violated their individual privacy. They cited the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons in support of their arguments. To make an order requiring a suspect to provide a DNA sample, the applicant must show that the suspect is over 17, there is good cause to suspect they have committed an imprisonable offence, and they have refused to provide a bodily sample. The Court would also need to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the bodily sample would either confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement in the offence. The Court considered that the police had an existing strong circumstantial case against the defendants. Therefore they had good cause to suspect the defendants of involvement in the aggravated robbery. They had found objects in the defendants' possession that had provided DNA material linking the defendants back to the crime scene. Also case law suggested that the Court had the power to order a second DNA sample where the first one had been given by consent. There was no reason to think that the police were to be prejudiced by their inadvertently destroying the first samples. On the argument that DNA samples are tapu, the Court concluded that the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act empowered the Court to make orders for DNA samples. Cultural objections do not override the Act's purpose of enhancing the administration of justice in New Zealand. Also the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure is subject to reasonable limitations, while the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons has not been incorporated into New Zealand statute law. The Court granted the police application, but also granted seven days' notice for counsel to agree on a culturally appropriate way for the samples to be taken. Judgment Date: 25 May 2018.