Category: DJF

Source: Privacy Commissioner

20 Mar 2026, 10:13

Have you ever wondered whether the information privacy principles in the Privacy Act 2020 are relevant to the right against unreasonable search and seizure? The Supreme Court answered that question with a yes in this criminal appeal. 

The appellant, Mr Tamiefuna, was convicted of one charge of aggravated robbery. He challenged the inclusion of photographic evidence used by Police to obtain this conviction. Mr Tamiefuna appealed a Court of Appeal decision which determined the photographic evidence was improperly obtained but declined to find the evidence should have been excluded from his trial. 

The Supreme Court found that the photographic evidence was both improperly obtained and should have been excluded from Mr Tamiefuna’s trial under s 30(4) of the Evidence Act 2006. A retrial was ordered.

Background

On 5 November 2019 Mr Tamiefuna was a passenger in a car which was the subject of a routine traffic stop. A police officer ran a National Intelligence Application (NIA) check for the occupants of the vehicle and discovered Mr Tamiefuna had previous convictions relating to property offending. The check revealed the driver of the car was unlicensed and the car was impounded. This required the occupants to exit the vehicle.

Mr Tamiefuna and his companions removed property from the car and stood on the footpath while waiting to be picked up. A police officer noticed there was a lot of property, including batteries and a woman’s purse and coat. This made them suspicious the property may have been stolen. At this point, the police officer took photographs of the property and the car’s occupants using their police issue smartphone. The photographs of Mr Tamiefuna show him standing on the footpath beside the car. He is looking towards the camera and is clearly aware that he was being photographed.  Mr Tamiefuna’s face and clothing are captured in the images.

The police officer added these photographs and a note of his observations to the NIA. The information was collected and retained as the officer thought it might be useful in future. There was no specific purpose. 

The photographs were critical evidence at Mr Tamiefuna’s trial, linking him to the aggravated robbery, as the clothing in the photographs matched a man captured in CCTV footage at the scene of the offending. 

There is no statutory authority authorising the taking of these photographs, nor the retention of one of those photographs on the NIA. 

Litigation history

Prior to his trial, Mr Tamiefuna challenged the admissibility of the evidence collected at the traffic stop. He argued it was improperly obtained and inadmissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act. The challenge was rejected in the High Court. The Court of Appeal declined leave to appeal that decision pre-trial. 

Following the trial, Mr Tamiefuna appealed his conviction. The Court of Appeal decided that the taking of a person’s photograph in a public place by police without a current investigative or law enforcement purpose, breached their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). However, the Court did not consider the evidence should have been excluded under s 30 of the Evidence Act, on the basis the impropriety was outweighed by the need for an effective and credible justice system. The appeal was dismissed.

The Privacy Commissioner’s role as an independent intervener in the proceeding

An intervener is a third party who is allowed to join litigation even though they are not a party to the proceedings. This process is called “intervening” and allows an expert or interested party to assist the court by making legal submissions on particular points – especially if the case is of general public importance.

The Privacy Commissioner was granted leave from the Court to intervene as an independent expert as the appeal would have broad consequences for the interaction between information privacy, NZBORA, and Police information gathering powers. 

Grounds of appeal in the Supreme Court

(a)    Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the photographic evidence was improperly obtained for the purpose of s 30 of the Evidence Act; and 
(b)    Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in admitting the evidence under s 30 of the Evidence Act.

Majority decision (Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France and Williams JJ)

At common law, Police have a duty to prevent crime and to detect and bring offenders to justice. The police have powers to undertake these duties and the common law will supplement existing statutory provisions when necessary. As the collection and retention of the photographs on the NIA were not authorised by statute, police were exercising their common law powers.

The exercise of police common law powers is subject to statutory requirements and restrictions. Relevant in this case was s 21 of NZBORA, which provides that every person has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. 

Was taking the photographs a search?

In determining whether Police taking photographs of a person in a public place after they were required to leave a car following a lawful traffic stop was a search, the majority considered four key factors; the nature of the place, the use to which the information was put, the manner of collection, and the nature of the information. 

Significant weight was given to the fact that Mr Tamiefuna was only in a public place because he has been ejected from a vehicle. The manner of collection was not at the higher end of intrusiveness, however, the use to which the information was put increased the level of intrusiveness. They also noted there were very few controls over the retention and use of Mr Tamiefuna’s personal information. The majority considered the police power exercised was intrusive and very general.

In assessing the nature of the information, the majority relied on the joint report of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) and the Independent Police Conduct Authority | Mana Whanonga Pirihimana Motuhake (IPCA), which was issued in 2022 following an inquiry into police conduct when photographing members of the public (the Joint Report). 

The Joint Report highlighted that photographs of individuals are sensitive biometric personal information, stating they are “capable of being analysed using facial recognition technology and other digital techniques which makes it even more important that the information is being collected, used, retained and stored lawfully.” The majority added that the sensitivity of biometric information is recognised in the fact that statutory regimes are required to govern their use and collection.

Overall, the majority concluded the police officer’s actions amounted to a search as Mr Tamiefuna had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was intruded on.

Was the search reasonable?

The taking and retention of the photographs was not lawful. Police are subject to statutory controls when conducting searches and it was not appropriate to extend their common law power to authorise a warrantless search for generalised intelligence gathering in a way which is not appropriate, particularly where the relevant statutory framework imposes controls in relation to the very same activity (though in a different context).

The majority stated the information privacy principles (IPPs) (when this incident occured the Privacy Act 1993 was in effect. The Privacy Act 2020 sets out the current IPPs in section 22. For the purposes of this case, there are no material differences between these iterations of the IPPs) were relevant, though not decisive, in an analysis of s 21 of NZBORA and s 30 of the Evidence Act. In discussing the IPPs, the majority stated:

• Under IPP 1, an agency may only collect personal information as is necessary for a lawful purpose. This was breached as there was no lawful purpose for the collection of Mr Tamiefuna’s information.
• Under IPP 3, the collecting agency must take reasonable steps to inform the person concerned, among other things, about the collection, the purpose of the collection and its legal basis. This was not done in this case.
• Under IPP 9, personal information once collected must not be held for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used. As there was no lawful purpose, the retention of the information was in breach of this principle. 

The IPPs were useful in stating the expectations of a reasonable person. As Police failed to comply with the IPPs,  the search was not reasonable (as it breached the Privacy Act) and the evidence was therefore improperly obtained.

As the search was illegal it was unreasonable under s 21 of NZBORA. This meant the photographic information was improperly obtained for the purposes of s 30 of the Evidence Act. 

Was the court wrong to admit the evidence?

If evidence is found to have been improperly obtained, s 30(2) of the Evidence Act requires the Judge to “determine whether or not the exclusion of the evidence is proportionate to the impropriety by means of a balancing process that gives appropriate weight to the impropriety and takes proper account of the need for an effective and credible system of justice.”

In this case, it was decided that excluding the evidence would not be disproportionate to the breach. There was a breach of an important right and an overextension of police powers (though the Court noted the police officers involved acted in good faith). The majority stated “an effective and credible system of justice in this case requires the exclusion of the evidence. Otherwise, on a longer-term basis, the justice system is brought into disrepute.”

As intervener, OPC submitted in the cases where evidence has been obtained in breach of s 21 of NZBORA or another human rights obligation, s 30 should be applied to provide an effective remedy for that breach. An effective remedy must both vindicate the right of the individual and avoid recurrence of the breach in other cases. This submission was accepted by the majority. 

Outcome

The appeal was allowed. Mr Tamiefuna’s conviction was quashed and a retrial was ordered.

Minority decision (Glazebrook J)

Glazebrook J considered there was no search in this case, finding the concept of a “search” would be extended too far if it included filming or photography of what a person saw and heard, where there is no active looking for someone or something. Further, Glazebrook J found Mr Tamiefuna did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The photograph was taken on a public street, it was not covert, and people should be expected to be observed while in public. An individual interacting with another person (including the Police) can have no reasonable expectation that the other person will not make and store a full and accurate audio or video of the interaction, which can later be disclosed and used.

This minority decision also considered the collection and retention of the photographs was both reasonable and lawful. It was an appropriate use of Police investigative powers into offending.

Glazebrook J agreed with the reasoning in the Court of Appeal and would have admitted the photographs under s 30 of the Evidence Act. In reaching that conclusion the Court of Appeal said that while the right breached was important, the intrusion on this right was not very serious and the evidence obtained was central to the prosecution. In these circumstances, exclusion of the evidence would be disproportionate to the breach.

Minority decision (Kós J)

Kós J also considered there was no search, as the traffic stop and ejection of Mr Tamiefuna from the car was lawful and Mr Tamiefuna was in a public place. People on a public street lack a reasonable expectation of privacy from being photographed. Cell phones and CCTV make this a routine experience. 

The essential feature of a search was described as an examination or investigation for the purposes of obtaining evidence, which intrudes upon a right to privacy. Kós J stated there was no right to privacy on a public street and no reasonable expectation of privacy, finding an ordinary photograph of a person present on the pavement of a public street should not engage s 21 of NZBORA.

In this case, the entry of Mr Tamiefuna’s photographs in the NIA was unlawful, as it was not permitted by either statute or common law. However, Kós J would not have excluded the evidence for the same reasons as Glazebrook J.

Kós J concluded by stating “What might have been seen as a grey area in 2019 was no longer so grey after [the Joint Report] was published. A different balance might be struck thereafter, in another case.”

Privacy implications

Key takeaways:

• The IPPs can be compelling in determining whether human rights have been breached.
• Despite the current cultural context (including available technology, such as cell phones and CCTV) being on a public street does not mean an individual has no expectation of privacy. Particularly where the state is exercising an intrusive power.
• At [33] the majority stated “there were features of the relevant events that mean the fact [Mr Tamiefuna]’s photograph was taken whilst he was on a public road is not a conclusive factor against the asserted reasonableness of his expectations of privacy. It remains important to preserve a sufficient zone of privacy for individuals. That in turn is a part of preserving the fundamentals of a liberal democracy.”

Related content

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/20/court-decision-summary-tamiefuna-v-r-2025-nzsc-40/

Source: Radio New Zealand

New figures from the Ministry of Justice show fewer people are becoming victims of crime.

The latest results from the annual Crime and Victims Survey showed 28 percent of adults – or 1.2 million people – were victims of crime during the 12 months to October 2025.

Ministry of Justice general manager sector insights Rebecca Parish said it was the lowest figure since the survey began in 2018.

“What’s behind that is we’ve seen decreases in a number of types of crime including violent crime which has come down, and also fraud, like those online scams,” she said.

Data released from the survey last month showed there were 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime in the year to October 2025 than two years previously.

The survey showed from 2018 to 2025, the proportion of victims of crime dropped from 30 percent to 28 percent.

Adults with disabilities were more likely to be targeted.

“In 2025 disabled adults were still significantly more likely to experience crime despite their older age profile. While on average 28 percent of adults experienced crime, it was 36 percent for disabled adults. This rises to 46 percent once their older age distribution is accounted for,” the survey said.

Burglary was experienced by nine percent of households (184,000), down from 12 percent in 2018.

Other household offences, such as trespass and vehicle-related crimes, were also at their lowest levels since the survey began.

“That’s a trend we’ve been seeing for a number of years now, and likely relates to the fact more people are working from home, and there’s been improvements in home security, the accessibility of that and affordability,” Parish said.

However, fewer adults felt safe in 2025 compared to 2018.

In the survey, 25 percent of adults reported feeling completely safe, a slight increase from 24 percent in 2024 but still down from 30 percent in 2018.

Meanwhile, 12 percent of people said they felt unsafe, down from 13 percent in 2024 but still up from 9 percent in 2018.

“That can be influenced by a lot of things, if they’ve experienced things themselves as victims or also media reporting of crime can play a role in people’s sense of safety,” Parish said.

The proportion of adults who were victims of fraud and cybercrime had been on a downward trend since peaking in 2022, though it remained higher at 10 percent (440,000 people) in 2025 compared to eight percent in 2018.

The survey found people were generally more concerned about nationwide crime than crime in their neighbourhoods.

Over three-quarters of adults were concerned about family violence, drugs and dangerous driving at a national level. Locally, fewer than half of adults were concerned about the same issues.

The issues of greatest concern locally were dangerous driving, vehicle offences, theft and burglary.

The  proportion of adults who were victims of violent offences was lower in 2025 (three percent) than in both 2024 and 2018 (four percent). 

“While these results are positive, we are also mindful that behind each statistic is a real person, some of whom have experienced crime and victimisation, and assisted us by providing valuable insights through their responses,” Parish said.

Parish said the survey was important because it covered both reported and unreported crime.

The survey said 36 percent of victims reported at least one incident to the police, and only about a quarter of all crime was reported in 2025.

It said most adults reported having at least some trust in the law system (83 percent) and the justice system (81 percent), however levels of trust varied across groups.

In 2025, just 28 percent of Māori adults reported having high trust in the justice system compared with 44 percent for the New Zealand average and 59 percent for Asian adults.

Police said it was pleased levels of trust and confidence in police remained stable in the results at 69 percent.

Assistant Commissioner Jeanette Park said maintaining trust and confidence with communities was a constant priority for the police, and whilst it was encouraging to see several improvements, there was always more work to be done.

Police said almost three quarters (74 percent) of New Zealanders agreed that police dealt effectively with serious crime, an increase from 70 percent in 2024.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/20/fewer-victims-of-crime-annual-justice-survey-reveals/

Source: New Zealand Government

Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of two new District Court Judges. 

The appointees, who will take up their roles in April and May at the Palmerston North and Nelson Courts, are:

Prudence McGuire

Ms McGuire is a Rotorua based barrister.  Her legal career began following admission to the bar in 1992, after which she joined LW Goodman in Palmerston North. She was then a staff solicitor and later Associate at Wollerman Cooke McClure in Carterton. 

In 2001, having moved to Rotorua, she joined Davys Burton. She became a partner in 2005 and during that period was a Crown and Senior Crown Prosecutor. Ms McGuire established herself as a barrister sole in 2008 and has represented clients in both family and criminal court matters since that time.

She is a present member of the Family Law Section Advisory Panel, a Mental Health Advocate and Lawyer for Child.

Judge McGuire will be based at the Palmerston North District Court and will be sworn in on 21 April 2026.

Christopher Macklin

Mr Macklin is a Nelson based barrister with extensive criminal and regulatory litigation experience. He was admitted to the bar in 2006 and following a brief period at Russell McVeagh, he joined Gordon and Pilditch, the Office of the Crown Solicitor in Rotorua.  He was an associate at that firm between 2010 and 2013, after which he became a partner. He was designated as a Principal Crown Prosecutor during the later period of his time with this firm. 

He left to set up practice as a barrister in 2023 and since that time has been based in Nelson, although most of his practice work takes place elsewhere.  He was also the convenor of the NZLS Criminal Law Committee until recently.

Judge Macklin will be based at the Nelson District Court and will be sworn in on 15 May 2026.

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/20/district-court-judges-appointed-3/

Source: New Zealand Police

Please attribute to Detective Senior Sergeant Paula Drewery, Taranaki Area Investigations Manager:

Police investigating a serious assault in Stratford yesterday evening are asking the public for information surrounding the incident.

The victim was walking through the entrance near the old Maryann Residential Care Hospital in King Edward Park around 6pm when they were assaulted by a male. They suffered injuries that require hospital treatment.

Of particular interest is a woman walking a Schnauzer-type dog in the same area of the park at the time. Police believe that her recollections may be of help.

If you were in the area at the time, have any sort of CCTV that looks into the park, or have any other information from between 5pm and 10pm that might be of help, please call 105.

You can also make a report online: 105 Police Non-Emergency Online Reporting. Click ‘Make a report’.

Please use the reference number 260321/4043.

You can also provide information anonymously through Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

ENDS

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/21/police-asking-for-information-on-park-assault/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Police are looking for the public’s help to identify people involved in a pub brawl in Hastings.

Detective Sergeant Heath Jones, Hastings Criminal Investigation Branch, said a fight involving both men and women took place inside the Common Room bar between 1.30 and 2am on Sunday 8 March.

Several people were injured, some seriously, with one requiring hospital treatment.

“Police are disappointed at the aggressive and careless behaviour on display at the Common Room that night and will be holding any offenders to account,” Jones said.

“We are asking the public for information to help identify the offenders and anyone else who was there at the time who may have suffered injuries or witnessed the fight.”

Police have released images of one of the people they wish to identify, a man wearing a fawn ‘Gucci’ baseball cap with a white shirt.

Information can be reported to Police by calling 105 or online using the file number 260308/6292, or anonymously through Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/20/police-appeal-for-witnesses-after-hastings-pub-brawl-leaves-several-injured/

Source: New Zealand Police

To be attributed to Acting Detective Senior Sergeant Karli Whiu:

Police are making enquiries after a man was located deceased at a construction site on Omahu Road in Hastings earlier this week.

Officers were called to the site at 7pm on Thursday 18 March. 

The man was not an employee at the site and his death is currently being treated as unexplained.

A scene guard remains in place at the site while a scene examination is completed.

Work is under way to formally identify the man and at this stage we are unable to provide any further details regarding his identity.

If anyone has information which they believe may be relevant to our enquiries, please contact Police via 105 and quote file number 260319/6453.

Information can also be provided anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre. 

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/20/police-making-enquiries-into-unexplained-death-in-hastings/

Source: Radio New Zealand

Police are monitoring a bare-knuckle fighting event in Christchurch organised by MMA professional fighter Dan Hooker.

The seventh-ranked UFC lightweight contender announced another “1 Minute Scraps” event on social media recently, telling hopefuls the event “is gonna scrap the gloves, we’re going bare-knuckle”.

A $50,000 prize was on offer for the winner with each combatant getting $1000 and $5000 available for each knockout.

Hooker told The Rock FM‘s Morning Rumble he had chosen the city for Sunday’s event because “I believe Christchurch has the craziest people”.

“We had thousands of people try to enter this. This excites me as a fighter,” he said.

Backyard-style fights have previously attracted backlash from some people involved in combat sports with the Boxing Coaches Association labelling it “straight-out thuggery“.

Following the criticism, Hooker told online combat sport programme the Ariel Helwani Show that, “there’s a few lefties having a sulk”.

“Since when did putting gloves on in the backyard and having a punch up become illegal?” Since when is that a crime?” he said.

Detective Senior Sergeant Damon Wells said police were aware of the event.

“We have spoken with the organisers of the event, who have been cooperative, and confirmed they are running a lawful event which they have done previously,” he said.

“Police monitored previous events run by these organisers and had no issues. However, we will continue to monitor such events, and anyone found to be participating in unlawful or antisocial behaviour should expect to be held to account for their actions.

“If anyone witnesses any concerning or antisocial behaviour is urged to call 111 in an emergency, or 105 to report non-urgent information.”

Hooker had promised to run more events in the future and said his plans for the next one “gets even more wild”.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/20/dan-hookers-bare-knuckle-backyard-fights-to-be-monitored-by-christchurch-police/

Source: New Zealand Police

Please attribute to Detective Sergeant Heath Jones, Hastings Criminal Investigation Branch

Police are appealing for witnesses and anyone else affected by a group of people fighting at a local Hastings pub, to come forward.

The fight occurred between 1.30 and 2am on Sunday 8 March.

Police received reports of a brawl involving men and women inside the Common Room bar which is located at 227 Heretaunga Street East, Hastings. 

Several people were injured, some seriously, with one requiring hospital treatment.

Police are disappointed at the aggressive and careless behaviour on display at the Common Room that night and will be holding any offenders to account.

We are asking the public for information to help identify the offenders and anyone else who was there at the time who may have suffered injuries or witnessed the fight.

If you were there, or you know someone affected please call 105 or make a report online by clicking ‘Make a report’ referencing the file number 260308/6292.

Police are looking to identify the male in the images attached. In two photos he is seen wearing a fawn ‘Gucci’ baseball cap with a white shirt.

You can also provide information anonymously through Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

We encourage anyone who witnesses illegal activity and violent behaviour to call Police immediately on 111.

END

Issued by Police Media Centre

MIL OSI

LiveNews: https://livenews.co.nz/2026/03/20/appeal-for-information-on-fight-at-common-room-bar-in-hastings/

Source: Radio New Zealand

An offender who became enraged during a meeting with his probation officer repeatedly stabbed the man in what has been described as the most serious attack on a probation officer in the country’s history.

The officer suffered life-threatening injuries after being stabbed in the head and four times in the chest by Taylor Lara Broughton, who had taken a flick knife to the meeting.

After the initial attack, he continued trying to stab the officer, but the victim’s “valiant and determined resistance” saved his life, a judge said.

Broughton later claimed he stood by his actions.

Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi (PSA), a Corrections staff union, told NZME that probation officers’ work was inherently dangerous but they were not given the basic protections, training or resources needed

to keep them safe.

It was concerned for its Community Corrections members, saying that, despite the near-fatal attack, Corrections has largely failed to act on the union’s safety recommendations.

But Corrections said its review into the incident, and a wider review, identified what more it could do to provide safe work environments for Community Corrections staff, and it was in the process of implementing safety enhancements.

However, it said the risk of violence could not be eliminated entirely and noted assaults on the staff were rare.

A prior risk assessment of Broughton, who had no history of violence or aggression towards Corrections’ staff, considered him suitable to be alone with his probation officer.

While Broughton had a knife in his pocket, Corrections said it does not have the authority to use metal detectors or conduct body searches at its community sites.

Enraged offender pulled out flick knife

According to court documents released to NZME, Broughton was serving a sentence of intensive supervision for firearms and offensive weapons offending when he met with his probation officer at Community Corrections in Whanganui

on 9 April, 2025.

That morning, the pair were wrapping up their appointment when, without warning, Broughton became enraged because the officer would not let him sign a document and keep a copy.

He waited until the officer turned and was distracted with paperwork before, “in a swift action”, he took the flick knife from his pocket and swung it at the victim, causing a deep cut to the side of his head.

A scuffle ensued, during which Broughton stabbed the probation officer in the chest four times as the officer tried to fight him off.

As they fell to the ground, Broughton continued trying to stab him but was prevented from doing so.

Other staff members intervened and Broughton was subdued and restrained until police arrived.

The officer was hospitalised for treatment of the stab wounds, a fractured rib and a small bleed in his lung.

Meanwhile, Broughton told police he became angry because he was unable to keep the document, which he said he was normally allowed to do.

He said he “stands by [his] actions”.

Broughton was sentenced in the Whanganui District Court in January this year for the attack.

‘Most serious assault ever’

At the hearing, Judge Bruce Davidson said the officer’s injuries were initially life-threatening, with one wound close to his heart and another near a vital artery. The injury to the head caused a small skull chip.

“This attack is said to be the most serious assault ever on a probation officer in New Zealand,” Judge Davidson said, according to his sentencing notes.

The judge said there was nothing to suggest Broughton had any obvious angst with the probation officer, “who was doing his level best to assist with [Broughton’s] rehabilitative pathway under the intensive supervision sentence”.

The victim was described as an experienced and skilled probation officer who, the judge said, had tried hard to defend himself.

“Your attack was sudden, swift and lethal and most likely it was only the valiant and determined resistance of your victim that saved his life,” Judge Davidson told Broughton at the hearing.

Since the attack, the officer has suffered ongoing concussion, headaches, fatigue and an inability to concentrate.

“The effects for him have been profound, physically, psychologically and emotionally,” the judge said.

“These effects have flowed on to his immediate family, whānau and work colleagues. Only now, some nine months later, he is on a return-to-work plan.”

At sentencing, the Crown proposed 11 years’ imprisonment as an appropriate starting point, submitting that Broughton lacked remorse and insight and that there were barriers to treatment given his failure to engage with the intensive

supervision sentence.

But the defence suggested a starting point of seven years and six months, submitting the attack was brief and something had “triggered [Broughton’s] rage”. His deteriorating mental health and personal background were justifiable

mitigating factors, his counsel said.

Judge Davidson said the writer of Broughton’s presentence report was rightly “deeply troubled” that Broughton had armed himself before attending the appointment, and by his “rather casual, if not nonchalant” attitude towards weapons

and violence.

The judge described the attack as extreme, sudden and unprovoked. He said it was premeditated and the injuries had a significant and profound effect.

However, he had also watched CCTV footage of the incident and described it as brief, lasting about 20 seconds.

For that reason, the judge stopped short of the Crown’s suggested starting point and instead adopted one of nine years and six months.

He then applied an uplift for offending committed while Broughton was serving a sentence and noted his prior firearms and weapons convictions.

Broughton was given credit for his guilty plea, mental health and the causal link between his “violent and traumatic” upbringing and his offending.

His final sentence on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was six years and three months’ imprisonment.

Probation officers’ safety under the spotlight

This week, PSA national secretary Duane Leo told NZME that Community Corrections staff manage a population that is by nature “volatile, violent, and anti-authority”.

He described the work undertaken as “fundamentally unsafe and dangerous”.

“Yet staff receive minimal training in how to respond to violence and aggression and what training is provided is regarded by PSA members as completely ill-matched to the risks they face every day,” Leo said.

He said PSA members say they see no difference in their health and safety at work a year on from the stabbing.

“Offenders may come into offices affected by methamphetamine or other substances and there is no weapons detection before they enter a room with their probation officer.”

The PSA has been explicit in its demands to Corrections since the stabbing over what is required to ensure probation officers are kept safe at work, Leo said, adding that very few recommendations have been supported by Corrections.

The urgent requests included body-worn duress alarms, GPS monitoring of staff, professional supervision, especially when managing violent offenders and sex offenders, information-sharing with police, and pay in accordance with the

risks they face, which their colleagues working in prisons receive.

Leo said the government must properly resource Community Corrections to support rehabilitation, while Corrections must ensure public and staff safety.

Brigid Kean, Corrections’ acting director, communities, partnerships and pathways, said keeping staff safe was the top priority and any violence directed towards them was completely unacceptable.

Safety processes were in place at all Community Corrections sites around the country, including Whanganui, she said.

This included staff training on de-escalation and keeping safe at work, physical security features, CCTV and technological security features enabling staff to call for urgent assistance.

Kean said for security reasons, she could not detail all the security measures in place.

She said Corrections’ review following the stabbing identified more than 40 “appropriate steps to deliver effective enhancements to safety”, of which it had started implementing more than half.

A start would be made on the remainder over the next two years, she said.

However, the PSA said that of the actions Corrections had already begun implementing, only one had been completed as of February 27. Nine were in progress, seven were in the planning stage and three had not yet started.

-This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

LiveNews: https://livenews.co.nz/2026/03/21/taylor-broughton-sentenced-for-life-threatening-knife-attack-on-whanganui-probation-officer/

Source: New Zealand Police

Attribute to Acting Detective Senior Sergeant Luke Vaughan:

Police have charged one man following a serious assault in Amberley last week.

On Thursday 19 March Police were called to a serious assault at an address on Racecourse Road.

A 24-year-old man is due to appear in Christchurch District Court on 26 March charged with wounding with intent.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

LiveNews: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/03/21/update-serious-assault-amberley-hurunui-district/