Bodily sample — databank compulsion notice — timely service of notice — Taylor v Attorney General HC Wellington, CIV-2015-485-530 — McMenamin v A-G [1985] 2 NZLR 274 — DSW v Stewart [1990] 1 NZLR 697 — Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, ss 39, 39A, 39C, 41, 41B, 42, 45 — Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Regulations 2004, form 8. The police applied for an order requiring the defendant to give a bodily sample pursuant to a databank compulsion notice. They had issued two databank compulsion notices following the defendant's conviction for methamphetamine possession, but had been unable to serve the notices on the defendant as they could not locate him. Some four months after the first notice had been issued, the police stopped the defendant as part of a traffic stop and were then able to serve him with a notice. The defendant objected to having to give a sample, and the police sought a court hearing on the matter. The defendant opposed having to give a sample on the grounds that the notice was not served as soon as reasonably practicable after his conviction, as required by the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act (the Act); the notice was invalid as it did not mention the possibility of a hearing based on police procedural failures; the police did not request a hearing within the required timeframe; the police had detained him unlawfully while issuing the notice; and he had signed a waiver under duress. The Court considered that the police had served the notice on the defendant as soon as reasonably practicable, given their difficulties in locating him. The notice was not invalid because it was in the form prescribed by the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Regulations, and in any case police procedural failures is not a ground of challenge under the Act. The delay by police in seeking a hearing was because of their misunderstanding of the Act, and was not deliberate, vexatious or an abuse of process. There was no unlawful detention of the defendant as he had been free to leave the traffic stop. The waiver the defendant had signed was inconsequential and had no bearing on the current police application. All the defendant's arguments failed. The Court made an order requiring him to supply a bodily sample pursuant to the databank compulsion notice. ment Date: 25 June 2018.