Judge-alone trial — assaulting constable in the execution of his duty — resisting constable in the execution of his duty — failing to give details to officers — lawfulness of arrest — police power to stop — Summary Offences Act 1981, ss 10 & 23(a) — Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52(1)(c) & 114 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 129 — COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, ss 20-26 — Land Transport Act 1962 (repealed) — R v Bainbridge (1999) 5 HRNZ 317 — Tapara v Police [1990] 3 NZLR 199 — McGarrett v R [2017] NZCA 204 — Byfield v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2006-409-84, 26 September 2007. The defendant faced charges of assaulting a constable acting in the execution of his duty, resisting a constable acting in the execution of his duty, and failing to give details to officers when required to do so. During the level 4 COVID-19 lockdown of 2020, the defendant was driving her car when she was stopped by a police officer who wanted to check that she was travelling for an essential purpose. The defendant refused to tell the officer why she was travelling, leading the officer to ask her her name, address and date of birth as per s 114 of the Land Transport Act (LTA). The defendant again refused to answer; the officer warned her that she could face arrest, but the defendant continued to be uncooperative, leading the officer to place her under arrest. The defendant then refused to get out of her car, so the officer broke one of the car windows and unlocked the door to effect an arrest. Another police officer arrived as backup, and the defendant scratched him while he was attempting to remove her from the car. The prosecution argued that the officer had been entitled to stop the defendant under either the LTA or the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act; that the defendant had refused to provide her details; and that the first officer had not been able to identify the defendant with sufficient certainty to be able to issue a summons. Therefore, the arrest had been lawful. The defendant's argument was that the arrest had been unlawful, because she had been stopped for a purpose unrelated to the LTA; and also that any force she had used against the officers had been in self-defence. The Court examined s 114 of the LTA and associated case law, and concluded that the section only conveyed a power to stop drivers and require them to provide details for purposes related to the administration of the LTA. In this case the officer had stopped the defendant for purposes related to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. Therefore he had had no power to require her to provide details for purposes related to the LTA and had no power to arrest her. As the officers were not acting lawfully at the time, it followed that the defendant had not resisted or assaulted them in the course of their duties. All three charges were dismissed. Judgment Date: 4 June 2021.