Brooker v Police was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand that concerned the meaning of "behaves in [a] disorderly manner" under section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 in light of s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which protects freedom of expression.

Brooker had decided to stage a protest, and Having tried to contact her at work, he went to her home, knowing that she had been on night duty and was likely to be there.

"[7] In the District Court, the judge considered that there was insufficient evidence of intent to intimidate and the charge was amended to one of behaving in a disorderly manner contrary to s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

[8] On that count of disorderly behaviour Brooker was found guilty and his appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

The judgment of Chief Justice Elias traversed the legal history of section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act and the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions to similar crimes, before observing, It is clear that behaviour which is disorderly under s 4 need not be likely to lead to violence because behaviour likely to cause that effect is covered by s 3.

[16]Tipping J noted that Constable Croft was the only person affected by Brooker's protest and that, "His behaviour, viewed objectively, did not in all the circumstances cause anxiety or disturbance at a level beyond that which a reasonable person in Constable Croft’s shoes should be expected to bear.

"[19] Justice Thomas dissented alongside McGrath J, and his lengthy judgment observes that the meaning of disorderly behaviour is largely indeterminate; that the law should provide the test of the reasonable person; and should seek to balance all of the rights, values and interests which are in issue in each particular case.

[20] In conclusion Thomas J argued strongly against the majority stating, "I would much prefer that both freedom of expression and privacy be recognised as fundamental values and, as such, weighed one against the other in a manner designed to afford the greatest protection to both.