Obligations · Rights · Options · Discussion 05

What must the power-holder tell you?

A person exercising statutory authority is not always required to answer every question you ask. But some powers carry specific legal duties to identify, explain, produce documents, give reasons or provide notice.

The useful question is not simply “Tell me your name.” It is:

“What information does the law require you to give me while exercising this power?”

Four kinds of information matter

If you are arrested or detained

Section 23(1)(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 says that everyone arrested or detained under an enactment must be informed at the time of the reason for it.

That is not a courtesy. It is a statutory right.

Section 23 also requires a detained person to be informed of the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay. If the arrest or detention is for an offence or suspected offence, the person must also be informed of the right to refrain from making a statement.

Section 316 of the Crimes Act separately requires every person making an arrest to tell the arrested person the act or omission for which they are being arrested, unless that is impracticable or the reason is obvious in the circumstances. The explanation does not have to use technical legal language; it must be sufficient to give notice of the true reason.

If the arrest is under a warrant or process

Section 316(2) of the Crimes Act creates another practical option.

If the person making the arrest has the process or warrant, or a copy, in their possession, they must produce it if the arrested person requires them to do so. If they do not have it with them, they must show it as soon as practicable after the arrest if required.

“Is this arrest under a warrant or process? If it is, I require you to produce it.”

Again, the point is not theatre. It is to identify the authority actually being relied upon and preserve whether the statutory procedure was followed.

If a search power is being exercised

Section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 is unusually explicit.

For many searches other than remote-access searches, before initial entry the person exercising the power must announce the intention to enter and search under statutory authority and identify themselves by name or unique identifier. If not in uniform, they must also produce evidence of identity.

Before or on initial entry, the occupier or person in charge must generally be provided with a copy of the search warrant. If the search is warrantless, the person must generally be told the enactment under which the search is taking place and the reason for the search, subject to the Act's exceptions and qualifications.

If no occupier is present

The Search and Surveillance Act also anticipates searches where no occupier or person in charge is present.

Section 131 contains notice requirements that can require a written notice and a copy of the search warrant or written advice about the warrantless authority to be left in a prominent place or otherwise provided within the statutory timeframe, subject to exceptions.

The notice can include the time of the search, the identity of the person with overall responsibility, the enactment relied upon for a warrantless search, the reason for the search, where inquiries should be made, and whether anything was seized.

This matters because accountability does not disappear simply because nobody was standing at the door when the power was exercised.

If property is seized

Section 133 of the Search and Surveillance Act requires an inventory when property is seized.

The person who carries out the search must provide written notice specifying what was seized and a copy of the relevant authority, either at the time or as soon as practicable, and in any event no later than seven days after seizure, to the persons identified by the section.

A later dispute is much harder to resolve if nobody can establish what was actually taken.

What if the person refuses to provide information?

This is where legal literacy matters most.

A refusal does not automatically prove the entire exercise of power is unlawful. Some duties have exceptions. Some information can lawfully be delayed. Some powers do not require the disclosure you are asking for.

But if legislation does impose the duty, the refusal is part of the evidential record.

What you should not assume

Do not assume every person exercising public power must quote an Act and section from memory. Some statutes require identification of the enactment; others impose different disclosure duties.

Do not assume refusal to show a document instantly always invalidates the power. Some statutes allow later production where immediate production is impracticable or the document is not in the person's possession.

Do not assume a uniform replaces statutory procedure. Where legislation requires reasons, authority, notice or an inventory, those duties remain part of the exercise of power.

Do not assume you lose the point because the encounter has ended. A contemporaneous record of what was—and was not—disclosed can become central to the later legal analysis.

The objective is not to win an argument at the roadside, doorway or protest line. It is to make the exercise of coercive power identifiable, reviewable and accountable.

Primary legislation

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23 — rights of persons arrested or detained ↗

Crimes Act 1961, s 316 — duty of persons arresting ↗

Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 131 — identification and notice requirements ↗

Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 132–135 — remote searches, inventories and notice rules ↗

Legislation checked against New Zealand Legislation on 31 August 2026. Statutory exceptions and delayed-notice provisions can materially change what must be disclosed at a particular moment.