Statutory Interpretation: Analysis of Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30

This case analysis examines Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30, focusing on the issues of disorderly behaviour and freedom of expression under the Summary Offences Act 1981 (NZ) and the New Zealand Bill of Rights. The case involves Mr. Brooker's protest outside a police officer's home, leading to his arrest. The Supreme Court addressed whether his actions constituted disorderly behaviour and if the restriction on his freedom of expression was justified. The analysis explores the court's reasoning, including its interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act, the application of the Melser test, and the balance between public order and individual rights. The court ultimately held that Mr. Brooker's behaviour did not constitute disorderly behaviour, emphasizing that the expression must generate a definite and existing risk of severe functional criminal activity to restrict freedom of speech. The case underscores the importance of considering freedom of expression and right of privacy as essential morals and, like that, evaluated one in the contrary to other in a manner intended to give the significant protection to both aspect.

Case Analysis & Statutory Interpretation
Assignment

Full case name and citation
Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30, [2007] 3 NZLR 91
The Court
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Thomas JJ
A statement of Material Fact
In the present case, Mr Brooker (appellant) considered that the behaviour of a police officer was
not lawful towards him. Therefore he decided to conduct a public objection exterior the
residence of a police officer. On the basis of this, he was charged as per the norms of Summary
Offence Act.
The procedural history
In this case, the complainant Mr Brooker deliberated that, a police officer misused their power at
the time of carrying of a search warrant. To reflect his anxiety, at the time of use of warrant by
the police officer he involved in a public dissent outside her home. Specifically, Mr Brooker
reached the residence of a police officer after 9.20 AM, as he had known that, the officer just
completed her night duty. He knocks the door, to determine that she is present at home. The
officer asked him to leave the property immediately. Mr Brooker instantly left the house and sat
on a grass strip in front of her house and continued to engage in public protest by holding
banners and repeating the caption of “no more fake warrants”. This protest persisted around 25
minutes, and he was arrested due to intimidation. He was accused and imprisoned as per section
4 of the Summary Offence Act 1981 (NZ), of the crime of ‘offensive behaviour or language1.
1 Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30, [2007] 3 NZLR 91

Issue/claims/ grounds of appeal
The Supreme Court ascertained that there are two issues involved in the given case, which are –
 What is considered disorderly behaviour?
 The degree to which the right to privacy might restrict the right of freedom in this case?
Summary of the court’s analysis
In order to determine the sufficiency of the behaviour of Mr.Brooker as per the criminal act
under the Summary Offence Act, and to justify the restriction on freedom of expression as given
under the Section 14 of New Zealand Bills of right, Elias CJ, judge of Supreme Court develop
the following reasoning –
As per the section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offence Act 1981, a individual a responsible for a
penalty of the maximum amount of $ 1000, in case if he/she misbehaves at any public place. The
judge contended that the court of Appeal or High Court, who determine the behaviour of Mr
Brooker as disorderly, consider only two main aspects. The first one is that they consider the
section 4(1)(a) as the safety of the isolation or emotions of the person, who is a matter of
commicative behavior, although the activity is not disrupting of public order. Moreover, the
Judge does not contemplate that it is the meaning of section 4(1) (a). There are several other
civil laws and criminal laws which offer the remedies of the privacy interest. A wide opinion on
the disorderly behavior secured to the public order determination of crime created by section 4(1)
(a) and concluded at by corresponding challenging interest recognized as justifiable of defence
by legal authority after the incident, is unreasonably limiting of freedom of expression and upsets
the standards that criminal law must be definite. As an outcome of the methodolgy considered,

the judge stated that the High Court or Court of Appeal was not sufficiently addressed the
important issue related to, whether the behaviour of Mr.Brooker was disorderly of public order.
In addition, the judge opinioned that lower judgmental authority was not correct to accept the
Melser test for measuring the significance of disruptive behaviour is contrary to the propensity of
behaviour leads to disturbance to those exists. Generally, the shunned expression leads to
disturbance to those people who do not agree with it. At the time of First Amendment speech,
Douglas J. stated that, disputes raises due to the freedom of speech given under the government
system. In reality, it is best to serve when it imposes the condition of conflict, builds
dissatisfaction, and even provokes the anger among people. By considering the above facts, it
has been ascertained that, unless the freedom of speech generates a definite and existing risk of
severe functional criminal that rise far away from public discomfort, disturbance, and annoyance,
it is nevertheless safeguarded against punishment. An affinity to disturb others, even severely, is
not adequate to establish the disturbance to public order which may create restriction upon
freedom of expression essentially.
Decision
By considering the facts, analysis, and finding by the lower court, it has been ascertained by the
judicial authority of Supreme Court that, because of the limited period of time of the protest by
Mr Brooker through the quite signing and banners cannot be considered as an annoyance to the
public. The behaviour of Mr.Brooker was not beyond that which a normal person would be
predicted to bear. Since, the disorganized behaviour should be severely disrupting of public
order, only the conception of disturbance is not sufficient. There must be the presence of an
unbiased leaning to annoy public order, through behaviour or due to the impact of language used.

An order made by the court
In the given case, the court held that behaviour of Mr.Brooker does not constitute disorderly
behaviour.
The ratio decidendi
The present case has been addressed by conferring the implementation of rights related to the
freedom of expression along with position and requirement of privacy of people and interest.
Freedom of expression and right of privacy should be considered as an essential morals and, like
that, evaluated one in the contrary to other in a manner intended to give the significant protection
to both aspect. It is contended that, in search of high perception of the right to freedom of
expression, is the idea that section 4(1) (a) can be implemented to enhance public order in the
aspect of dignity and uniformity in a public place to the assistance of all citizen. This objective
can be obtained deprived of excluding trivial or negligible behaviour. Overall the decision assists
that, in the representative and public community, people can apply their power obligations with
anxiety and deliberation for their associated individuals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of case
Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30, [2007] 3 NZLR 91