Jeremy Bioletti Law

Jeremy Bioletti Law Jeremy Bioletti - Barrister
Serious Fraud & Complex Case Specialist
30+ years in Criminal Law Defenc He also won major tax fraud cases against the IRD.

Jeremy grew up in Warkworth, a small country town one hour drive out of Auckland. He graduated from Auckland University with an LLB in 1983 and his first job was with Criminal Lawyer Chris Reid where he defended clients on traffic, police & crown cases. He later joined a big Auckland law firm Macalister-Mazengarb where he practised Criminal and Medical Law defending many Doctors. In 1990 Jeremy jo

ined the Serious Fraud Office and rose to Senior Prosecutor. Many of the cases were high profile including, the Fortex scandal. In 1995 Jeremy set up his own practice, defending people again. His specialist area being Serious Fraud, including the Wilkinson Case which resulted in a rewrite of the Crimes Act 1998. In 2007 he defended two people accused of terrorism in Operation 8, known as the Urewera case. In 2003 Jeremy defended a female Ukranian client on false passport charges but she was in fact a s*x trafficking victim. He won the case but she was prosecuted by the government two more times. In total he defended and won three times ultimately resulting in an acquittal. Later in 2013 Jeremy himself was in court against the IRD and was bankrupted. This of course made life difficult but he was allowed to keep practising as a lawyer and has built up his practise again. Undeterred he is presently defending a client against extradition sought by the United States in the Dot Com Case. He feels his experience as a bankrupt has given him a new insight to the plight of his clients and wishes to keep helping and defending people from all walks of life without judgement.

04/02/2026

Dismissal of all charges. Yes thanks we'll take it. Winning.

17/12/2025

Big day in court. Major issue..Will keep you posted.

19/11/2025

Prosecution failed twice to get a compulsion order for dna sample. Core problem was that the dna profile should not have been in the database..so unlawful search arrest detention and prosecution.

Abuse of process is a legal doctrine that refers to the misuse of the legal system for an improper purpose, even if the ...
04/08/2025

Abuse of process is a legal doctrine that refers to the misuse of the legal system for an improper purpose, even if the proceedings themselves may appear valid on the surface. In both civil and criminal law, it allows a court to stay (halt) or dismiss proceedings where allowing them to continue would be unjust or bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

---

⚖️ General Definition

Abuse of process occurs when legal procedures are used:

For a purpose other than that for which they were designed, or

In a manner that is unfair or oppressive to a party, undermining the integrity of the justice system.

---

🔹 Examples of Abuse of Process

Prosecuting a case solely to harass the defendant.

Re-litigating matters already determined (re-litigation abuse).

Deliberate manipulation of legal procedure (e.g., misleading the court).

Proceedings based on unlawfully obtained evidence (e.g., an illegal search).

Using legal action as leverage for an unrelated goal (e.g., blackmail or extortion).

---

🇳🇿 In New Zealand (Criminal Context)

New Zealand courts have recognized that abuse of process can justify staying a prosecution. Leading cases include:

✅ Fox v Attorney-General [2002] 3 NZLR 62

Set out principles under which the court can stay a prosecution for abuse of process.

✅ Williams v R [2009] NZCA 180

Emphasized the court's role in protecting the integrity of the justice system.

Grounds may include:

Improper motives of prosecution.

Unlawful or oppressive conduct by police (e.g., unlawful searches or detention).

Delay that leads to unfairness.

Use of illegally obtained DNA or evidence where rules on destruction were breached.

---

🛑 Remedy

If abuse of process is established, the court can:

Stay the proceedings permanently (most serious remedy).

Exclude evidence (if its admission would damage fairness or justice).

Grant other procedural remedies, such as costs or directions to rectify unfairness.

---

⚠️ Important Distinction

Abuse of process is not the same as simply having a weak case or making legal errors. It is about the misuse of the legal system itself.

---

02/08/2025

In New Zealand, if information obtained under an illegal search warrant is then used to support a subsequent search warrant application, several important legal issues arise. The courts will look closely at whether the illegality of the first warrant "taints" the second warrant. Here's a breakdown of the likely legal position under New Zealand law:

---

📌 1. Doctrine of Illegality and Derivative Evidence

Evidence obtained under a second warrant that was based on unlawfully obtained information may be considered derivative evidence. If the first warrant was illegal, the second may also be invalid if it relied materially on that tainted information.

This falls under the exclusionary rule, particularly s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006, which allows evidence to be excluded if it was improperly obtained.

---

📌 2. Section 30 – Exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence

Section 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 says:

> "Evidence obtained improperly, unfairly, or in breach of any right... must be excluded unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in that way."

Key considerations under s 30(3) include:

Nature and seriousness of the breach

Whether it was deliberate or reckless

The nature of the right breached (e.g. s 21 NZBORA: right to be free from unreasonable search)

Whether there were other lawful means to obtain the evidence

The reliability and importance of the evidence

So if the first warrant was unlawful (e.g. lacked proper basis, or obtained by misleading the court), and the second was significantly based on what was found through that unlawful process, the second warrant could also be ruled unlawful — and the evidence excluded.

---

📌 3. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Principle (NZ context)

While New Zealand law doesn't use this American phrase, the principle is reflected in New Zealand case law. If the first illegality taints the second warrant, then the evidence obtained under the second warrant may also be inadmissible.

---

📌 4. Case Law Examples

R v Williams [2007] NZCA 52: The Court of Appeal held that unlawfully obtained evidence could still be admissible if the balancing test in s 30 favoured admission — but emphasised the importance of discouraging unlawful police conduct.

R v Mahanga [2001] 1 NZLR 641: The court excluded evidence obtained via a second warrant that relied on unlawfully obtained initial information.

---

📌 5. Misleading the Judge in Second Application

If the applicant for the second warrant failed to disclose that the initial information was unlawfully obtained — or worse, knowingly used tainted information — the second warrant could be set aside for lack of candour or for being materially misleading.

---

✅ Summary

If the first search warrant was unlawful, and that information was used to obtain a second warrant, the court may:

Invalidate the second warrant

Exclude any evidence obtained under the second warrant under s 30 of the Evidence Act

Consider whether police acted in bad faith or recklessly

Look at the seriousness of the breach and the importance of the evidence

Would you like help analysing a specific fact pattern under this framework?

02/08/2025

Sure! Here’s a clear, practical guide to criminal court procedure in New Zealand:

---

Criminal Court Procedure in New Zealand: A Basic Guide

1. First Encounter: Arrest or Summons

Arrest: Police arrest you if they believe you’ve committed a crime. You will usually be taken to the police station, processed, and possibly held until court.

Summons: Instead of arrest, you might be summoned to court — a formal notice telling you when and where to appear.

---

2. First Court Appearance (Called a "First Call")

Happens at the District Court (almost all cases start here).

You’ll be formally told what you’re charged with.

You can:

Ask for time to get a lawyer (called an adjournment).

Apply for legal aid if you can’t afford a lawyer.

Enter a plea:

Guilty: You accept the charge and the case moves to sentencing.

Not Guilty: You deny the charge, and the case is set for a trial or hearing.

---

3. Case Management

If you plead Not Guilty, the court schedules hearings to:

Exchange evidence (like police reports, CCTV footage, witness statements).

Set a trial date.

Try to resolve issues early (sometimes the charge can be withdrawn or changed).

---

4. Defended Hearing or Trial

Judge-alone trial: Most less serious cases (e.g., drink driving, assault) are heard by a Judge alone.

Jury trial: Serious offences (e.g., robbery, s*xual assault) can be heard by a jury of 12 citizens.

In trial:

The prosecution presents its case first.

Then the defence can present evidence and call witnesses.

Each side can cross-examine the other’s witnesses.

---

5. Verdict

After hearing all the evidence:

The Judge (or jury) decides if you’re Guilty or Not Guilty.

If Not Guilty — you are free to go.

If Guilty — the case moves to sentencing.

---

6. Sentencing

Happens at a separate hearing.

The Judge decides the appropriate punishment (fines, community work, supervision, home detention, or prison).

They consider:

How serious the crime was.

Your criminal history (if any).

Any mitigating factors (like showing remorse).

---

7. Appeals

If you believe there was an error at trial (legal or factual), you can appeal the verdict or the sentence to a higher court:

From the District Court to the High Court.

From the High Court to the Court of Appeal.

---

Key Things to Know

Diversion: For minor offences, first-time offenders might qualify for "diversion" — a program that can lead to the charge being dropped after completing conditions.

Name Suppression: In some cases (especially involving sensitive matters), the court can order that your name not be published.

Youth Court: Offenders aged 14–17 (and sometimes younger) are usually dealt with in the Youth Court, not adult court.

02/08/2025

Beware of search warrants that seek information outside the scope of the offending it was granted for

02/08/2025

Warning to all. The dna database run by the police is dodgy

25/07/2025

Here is something interesting for you peeps. On a sentence of community detention, does there have to be electronic monitoring?
The legislation is open to the interpretation that it is up to the probation service as to whether they require electronic monitoring to be put in place. So if you have an address but it is not suitable for electronic monitoring that requirement may not have to be imposed in the probation officers discretion. Thanks to one of my favourite Judges who raised the issue in court the other day. I will check out the sentence of Home detention and see whether the position is different there. I suspect it will be. No, I checked it and the position for Home detention is the same as for Community Detention. It may be up to probation as to whether electronic monitoring is required. All of the above means it is possible to serve home detention or community detention without electronic monitoring. But the decision is up to probation. So for instance, if a person sentenced to home detention has a great job which they cannot do with a bracelet on their leg this would be a very good reason for electronic monitoring not to be required. If you can it would be great to share this post so word gets out there.

25/07/2025

Have a great weekend peeps

Address

32 Sherbourne Road Mt Eden
Auckland
1024

Telephone

+64274870347

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Jeremy Bioletti Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Jeremy Bioletti Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category