district court logo

Ministry for Primary Industries v Wood [2018] NZDC 18103

Published 01 October 2019

Admissibility of evidence — powers of search — warrantless search — ill-treatment of cattle — R v Hata CA 441/05 21 August 2006 — Animal Welfare Act 1999, ss 127, 129 & 130 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 3. The defendant faced charges relating to ill-treatment of his cattle. Two animal welfare inspectors had traveled to his property after receiving a complaint. At the property they found cattle in poor body condition with inadequate feed. Fifteen of the cattle had died. The defendant was not at the property at the time, so the inspectors left a notice next to his front door advising him of their inspection and requiring him to take action. The defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence of the animal welfare inspectors. He argued that the inspectors should have contacted him and arranged to meet him at the property, and that they should have left the notice at his front gate rather than next to his front door. He argued their evidence had been obtained improperly. The Court pointed out that s 127 of the Animal Welfare Act (the Act) authorises animal welfare inspectors to conduct warrantless searches of properties for the purposes of checking animal welfare. There is no statutory requirement to contact property owners before carrying out inspections. The inspectors had properly exercised their authority under s 127 and their actions in leaving the notice near the defendant's front door complied with s 129 of the Act. The Court also rejected the defendant's claims that the inspectors had interfered with his personal belongings and entered his house. The evidence of the inspectors was admissible. Judgment Date: 10 September 2018.