Social Development cannot piggy-back on Police powers when investigating benefit fraud, the High Court ruled. It must follow its own statutory investigation procedures.
Demonstrating some clever lateral thinking, Social Development staff hit upon using High Court rules which allow limited public access to court documents in order to search through some 1990 pages of evidence in an affidavit filed by Police in the Rotorua High Court; part of a proposed Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act profit forfeiture application sought by Police against four named defendants.
These High Court access rules are most commonly used by journalists seeking detailed background from court files for news stories, or genealogists seeking to open a long-closed divorce file held since the days divorce required a High Court application.
Social Development wanted to take advantage of affidavit evidence derived from the stronger powers of investigation allowed Police in tracking down ill-gotten gains.
It suspected the lengthy affidavit filed by Police would have information assisting its own benefit fraud inquiry.
Police did not object to disclosure. Pane Jasmin Hart, one of the four defendants, did object.
Having been forced to attend a judge-ordered police interview under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, Mr Hart said he had no right to silence. Failure to answer police questions would lead to criminal prosecution. Generally, answers given in a Criminal Proceeds examination cannot be used in any subsequent trial. But Police can use this information to uncover other evidence which can be used at trial.
Mr Hart said it was contrary to the fair administration of justice for information extracted under compulsion for one purpose to be used by Social Development for a different investigation, an investigation where he does have a right to remain silent.
Social Development is given extensive information gathering powers by the Social Security Act, Justice Blanchard said. The orderly administration of justice is better served by Social Development using its own statutory procedure, and with it, the beneficiary safeguards built into its code of conduct, he ruled.
Commissioner of Police v. Hart – High Court (3.04.25)
25.102