Reserved judgment — battery — legality of arrest — whether reasonable grounds to suspect offence — breaching Covid-19 order — global pandemic — Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 — Crimes Act 1961, s 315 — COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, s 26 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 16, 21 & 22 — COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) 2021, cll 17, 18(1) & Sch 5 — Neilsen v Attorney-General [2001] 3 NZLR 433 — Beagle v A-G [2007] DCR 596 — Hayward v O’Keefe [1993] NZLR 181 — R v Thompson (1995) 13 CRNZ 546 — Prescott v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 3376 — Caie v A-G [2005] NZAR 703 — YP v Youth Court at Upper Hutt HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-1905, 30 January 2007, Mallon J — O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] AC 286 (HL), [1997] 1 All ER 129 — Gaskin v Police [2009] SASC 351, (2009) 54 MVR 508 — Dumbell v Roberts [1944] 1 All ER 326 (CA) — Craig v Attorney-General (1986) 2 CRNZ 551 — Niao v A-G (1998) 5 HRNZ 269 at 287-288; CP 22/96 (HC) Rotorua) 11 June 1998, Randerson J — Four Aviation Security Service Employees v Minister of COVID-19 Response and others, CIV-2021-485-5091. The plaintiff sought compensation for what he claimed was unlawful arrest and detention. He had been arrested on suspicion of having breached a Covid-19 order by traveling from one Covid-19 alert level to another. The arrest had occurred outside the Wellington High Court, where a trial was underway. The plaintiff submitted that he had been at the High Court to report on the trial, which was a legitimate reason to travel from one Covid-19 alert level area to another. He also submitted that in driving to Wellington he had traveled directly through Auckland, which had a different Covid alert level, without stopping. Therefore he claimed the police had had no good cause to suspect that he had committed an offence against the Covid-19 regulations (the regulations), and should not have arrested him. The defendant's position was that the arresting officers had had grounds to suspect that the plaintiff had offended against the regulations and therefore the arrest had been justified. The Court found that the police had had reason to believe that the plaintiff had been living in Auckland at the time, and had not just driven straight through Auckland as he had claimed. The police had also had reason to believe that the plaintiff was at the High Court to protest, rather than to simply report on the proceedings. Further, the police had made efforts to establish the plaintiff's movements and purpose, but he had not been forthcoming in providing information. The Court ruled that the police had had good reason to suspect that the plaintiff had breached the regulations, so the arrest had been lawful. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed. Judgment Date: 29 May 2024