R v Pikia: Changing the Landscape from Fishing Expedition to Focussed Probe
Introduction
The legal parameters of search and seizure in New Zealand have undergone significant refinement in recent times. A notable illustration is the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v Pikia [2024] NZCA 408, which examined how the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) exercised its broad statutory powers to obtain documents and information from multiple sources.
The decision reaffirms longstanding principles against general or “fishing expedition” style searches and underscores the importance of specificity and proportion when issuing warrants or compulsory production notices. This case revolved around an investigation conducted by the SFO. However, it seems clear the logic and principles set out by the Court of Appeal in this case extend more broadly—especially to agencies such as the New Zealand Police. This blog post explores the judgment’s key takeaways and contemplates their likely impact on search warrant or surveillance device warrant applications across the law enforcement spectrum.
1. Background to R v Pikia
R v Pikia involved allegations of serious and complex fraud, prompting the SFO to invoke its powers under the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 (SFO Act) to investigate Mr Roger Pikia. The SFO’s investigation progressed to “Part 2” of the SFO Act, where the Director of the SFO “has reasonable grounds to believe” an offence involving serious or complex fraud may have been committed. This opened the door to:
Section 9 notices (compelling individuals or entities to produce documents, supply information, or attend interviews), and
Section 10 warrants (allowing searches and seizures of potentially relevant evidence).
Over the course of four years, more than 200 section 9 notices were issued and numerous search warrants obtained. Some of the notices and warrants were executed against Mr Pikia personally. However, a number were also executed against professionals and businesses that interacted with Mr Pikia and others, including an accountancy firm, telecommunications companies and a travel agency.
Mr Pikia challenged many as being too expansive—akin to a “general warrant.” The Court of Appeal ultimately declared certain exercises of power unlawful and emphasized that the SFO’s approach in these instances lacked adequate specificity and robust justification for the breadth of material demanded.
Examples of Unlawful Document and Communication Requests
The Court of Appeal found that many of the section 9 notices issued by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) were excessively broad and amounted to an improper use of compulsory powers. Below are some concrete examples of documents and communications requested by the SFO that were later ruled unlawful by the Court:
A. Comprehensive Financial and Business Records
The SFO issued notices requesting all financial statements, working papers, minute books, file notes, and general correspondence for multiple business entities covering an eight-year period (2009–2017). The entities included:
Te Arawa Group Holdings Limited
TARIT (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust)
Tahu Whaoa
Aotearoa Inc
Tonga Forest Products Limited (a Tongan-registered company)
Ngāti Tahu Ngāti Whaoa Runanga Limited (a Vanuatu-registered company).
The notices also sought all documentation relating to board meetings for the company Te Arawa River Iwi Trust (TARIT) since its incorporation in 2009, along with all governance manuals, remuneration policies, consultancy agreements, and service agreements linked to Mr. Pikia.
B. Broad Banking and Financial Data Requests
The SFO required all bank statements and credit card records for Mr. Pikia and at least eight other entities covering the entire period from December 2009 onwards.
The notices also sought any documentation regarding internet banking, account details, payment methods, and invoices.
The Court found that the scope of these requests was unjustifiably wide, with no clear connection to the specific fraud allegations.
C. Overly Broad Communications Seizures
The SFO demanded all email communications from 20 different email addresses spanning a five-year period (2013–2018). Many of these accounts belonged to individuals who were not under investigation.
The Court found this reasoning insufficient to justify such a sweeping capture of personal and business emails.
The SFO demanded all text communications and associated data over a six month period from a telecommunications company relating to Mr Pikia but also two others who were not being investigated.
The Court found that for the two individuals not being investigated this appeared to be a “substantial and unjustified invasion of their privacy”.
D. Travel Records Without Justification
The SFO served notices on House of Travel, Air New Zealand, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) seeking all international and domestic travel records for Mr. Pikia and multiple associates.
Some requests had no time limitations and demanded all travel documentation, accommodation bookings, and flight records for Mr. Pikia and “any other person traveling independently or jointly with him.”
The Court ruled that these notices infringed reasonable expectations of privacy and were unnecessary and unjustified.
E. Wholesale Digital Data Seizures
The SFO collected over one million documents, including:
All of Mr. Pikia’s and his partner’s electronic devices
All data stored in their cloud accounts
Private communications sent via text and email
Records of their personal gambling transactions
His personal and business conveyancing records from 2009 onwards.
The Court found that the SFO failed to maintain records of how it searched and filtered this vast amount of information, making it impossible to determine whether the seizure and review process was lawful.
Court’s Findings: Unlawful Overreach
The Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that these requests exceeded what was reasonably necessary for investigating the alleged frauds. Instead of focusing on specific transactions or misconduct, the SFO cast an overly wide net, seeking to scrutinize Mr. Pikia’s entire financial and professional life over nearly a decade. The Court determined that “s9 powers do not provide the SFO with a general licence to conduct a wide-ranging audit of a person’s affairs to see whether any fraud may have been committed.”
The Court emphasized that:
Searches must be specific and proportionate to the alleged fraud.
Indiscriminate demands for records—especially without clear evidential justification—amount to an unlawful general search.
The SFO should have targeted its requests more narrowly rather than obtaining massive amounts of personal, financial, and business data with only limited relevance.
These findings reinforce the importance of judicial oversight and specificity in the exercise of compulsory investigative powers in fraud cases. But, in my view, they extend beyond the broad powers available to the SFO.
2. Key Principles Reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal
(a) Prohibition on General Warrants
New Zealand courts have long been wary of “general warrants”—search instruments that authorise an unstructured rummage for evidence across an overly broad timeframe or subject matter. In R v Pikia, the Court reaffirmed that enforcement agencies must clearly anchor each notice or warrant to the suspected offence and to the information truly necessary for the investigation. An “all documents since day one” approach risks crossing the line into unreasonableness, especially where those documents have no discernible connection to the suspected offending.
(b) Reasonable and Proportionate Scope
While the SFO Act contemplates significant investigative powers—particularly for complex fraud—the Court underscored that “substantial” does not mean “unlimited.” Agencies must show a reasoned link between the scope of requests and the factual basis for their suspicions. The broader the net is cast, the stronger the evidential foundation required.
(c) Accountability and Record-Keeping
For digital or large-scale seizures, the investigating body should maintain a clear record of how the data was searched or filtered. The Court noted that if the agency fails to document its approach, a court cannot later verify whether the search truly respected statutory or constitutional limits (notably section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure).
3. Broader Implications for Other Agencies
Application to Police Warrants
Although the decision specifically addressed the SFO’s statutory powers, its core reasoning resonates with all investigators operating under statutory warrant regimes. The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (SSA) governs the New Zealand Police’s search warrant process and closely mirrors the balance between enabling effective law enforcement and protecting individual rights. Expect to see heightened judicial focus on:
The scope of requested material: Are the categories of documents or data strictly relevant, or are they too sweeping?
Evidential foundation: Is there a robust basis (generally reasonable grounds) for believing that the items sought are indeed relevant to an alleged offence?
Clarity and particularity: Does the application or warrant avoid vague, overly generic descriptions?
If a search warrant application from the Police is framed too broadly—authorising a wholesale trawl through business records, emails, or personal data with minimal justification—the R v Pikia ruling strengthens the position of defendants or their counsel seeking to challenge such warrants and admissibility of the evidence obtained as a result of them.
Impact on Surveillance Warrants
The Police (and other enforcement bodies such as the Customs Service or Department of Internal Affairs) sometimes apply for surveillance device warrants, governed by the SSA. Although surveillance differs from physical searches, the principle remains the same: there must be clarity around who or what is subject to surveillance, why, and for how long. A broad or indiscriminate warrant to eavesdrop or intercept “all communications” in a given property or device, lacking tailored justification, raises similar concerns about unreasonableness.
Other Investigatory Agencies
Regulatory agencies like the Commerce Commission, the Financial Markets Authority, or Inland Revenue can also be required to show that the scope of their investigative activities is not oppressive or disproportionate. Even though some operate under discrete statutory frameworks, courts tend to adopt consistent standards across the board—particularly in evaluating reasonableness against the Bill of Rights.
4. Key Takeaways
Specific, Justified Scopes: Enforcement bodies must carefully define what materials they need and show how it aligns with the suspected wrongdoing.
No “Fishing Expeditions”: Longstanding principle but now given renewed emphasis—large-scale data grabs with tenuous links to the alleged offence will draw criticism and legal challenges.
Document Your Process: Agencies—and counsel representing them—should keep clear records of how data or documents are seized, triaged, and examined.
Scrutiny Across All Enforcement Bodies: The Police, IRD, Customs, and others, when applying for search warrants or surveillance warrants, should heed this guidance if they wish to avoid judicial pushback and potential exclusion of evidence.
5. Conclusion
The R v Pikia judgment is a timely reminder that even well-intentioned investigations must conform to principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and specificity. In the SFO’s domain, its broad statutory powers come with a corresponding duty to justify each step in the investigative process. The underlying rationale applies equally to other agencies empowered to obtain search or surveillance warrants. We can expect courts to scrutinise how each application delineates the requested scope and clarifies its necessity. A well-prepared and carefully circumscribed warrant application not only helps secure reliable evidence but also upholds fundamental rights—a balance that is crucial in our legal system.
If you have questions about how R v Pikia may affect an ongoing or contemplated investigation—or if you need advice regarding the lawfulness of a warrant—reach out to our office. As always, early and proactive legal guidance is essential for safeguarding rights and ensuring procedural compliance.
About the Author
Steven Lack is a leading criminal defence barrister based in Auckland. He has particular expertise in cases of complex and serious fraud and money laundering. With a strategic and meticulous approach, he provides expert legal representation for clients facing complex criminal charges.
For more information about Steven’s practice, visit About. If you need expert legal advice, explore the Legal Services he offers or Contact him directly.