district court logo

Boyd v Attorney-General [2017] NZDC 26931

Published 02 October 2018

Damages — dog attack — theft from restaurant — excessive force during an arrest — tort of battery — dine and dash — lawful detention — police dog — obtaining credit by deception — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s 23 — Wright v Bhosale & Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 3367. The plaintiff claimed damages from the Crown in respect of two incidents in which he was arrested by police officers. The first incident related to an event where the plaintiff was arrested; during the arrest he was bitten by a police dog. The plaintiff alleges that excessive force was used in conducting that arrest. The second incident related to an occasion where the plaintiff was dining at a restaurant with a friend. The then-Prime Minster, John Key, was also dining there. After they had finished their meal an issue arose between the plaintiff and the restaurant staff as to who was to pay for the meals. The plaintiff asserted that John Key had agreed to do so; after causing a scene the plaintiff was escorted outside by a member of the Diplomatic Protection Squad, detained and eventually arrested for theft of the meal by a uniformed member of the Police. The plaintiff claimed that the actions of the DPS breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that he was unjustifiably assaulted, detained and falsely imprisoned. On examining the evidence of the Botanic Gardens incident where the plaintiff was arrested, and in the course of the arrest bitten by the police dog; the court found the evidence of the plaintiff implausible. The court then finding that the arrest of the plaintiff was lawful, justified and carried out without excessive force. In relation to the Green Parrot incident, the Court found that the Constable applied sufficient force in removing him from the restaurant, and that the plaintiff was intoxicated and causing a scene. The actions of the Constable were no more than to hustle the plaintiff out of the restaurant, thereby taking him away from a situation where some form of physical altercation with other people or property damage could take place. It was also found that the subsequent arrest of the plaintiff was justified under the Crimes Act. The only successful aspect of the plaintiff's claim related to him being held and detained by the Constable outside the restaurant. The court found that there was no lawful justification for this detention, essentially because the Constable did not purport to arrest him and a New Zealand police officer has no legal right to detain a person except pursuant to a statutory power to arrest. The court was satisfied that the damages awarded to compensate the plaintiff for his brief detention without lawful justification should be fixed at $750. The other causes of action alleged by the plaintiff were not established and the claims made under them were dismissed. Judgment Date: 20 December 2017

Tags