Pre-trial — search warrant — legality of search warrant — exclusion of evidence — importation of controlled drugs — possession of controlled drugs — search of residential address — Evidence Act 2006, s 30(5) — Crimes Act 1961, s 72(1) & 311(1) — Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a), 6(2)(b), 6(2)(c) & 7(1)(a) — Customs and Excise Act 2018, s 225 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 6 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147 — R v Williams [2007] 23 CRNZ 1 — R v T [2008] NZCA 99. The defendant faced a number of drugs-related charges, which arose from a search of his house by customs officers. The defendant challenged the legality of the search, arguing that the search warrant had been improperly obtained. To obtain a search warrant under the Customs and Excise Act, a customs officer has to show evidence of reasonable grounds to believe that a search would reveal evidence of the commission of an offence against the Act. The evidence in this case related to the defendant's role in collecting a parcel that contained class C drugs. The Court determined that the evidence was not strong enough to provide reasonable grounds for belief. It did not conclusively tie the defendant or his house to the importation of the drugs; therefore, the customs officers only had a suspicion that the defendant's house contained evidence, meaning that the warrant was invalid and the evidence illegally obtained. In considering whether to admit the illegally-obtained evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act, the Court observed that the search had breached one of the defendant's most fundamental rights, to privacy in his home. Further, there was no need to undertake the search urgently and the only remedy to the illegal search was to exclude the evidence. However, there was no evidence that customs had acted in bad faith, the evidence obtained had been of high quality, and the charges the defendant faced were serious. In balance, the Court decided that it was appropriate to admit the evidence. Finally, the Court declined to dismiss one of the charges against the defendant, finding that the charge should be left to a jury to decide. Judgment Date: 10 March 2022.