Mr Miller's defence was unsuccessful and he was convicted, yet Mr Haunui successfully avoided a conviction.
This put two district court judges at a legal loggerhead.
In the Christchurch District Court, Judge Mark Callaghan found while a notice was served on Mr Haunui, "the notice was not a notice from the agency".
In the Wellington District Court, Judge Ian Mill released two decisions ruling the agency could delegate authority to the police.
This created a legal quagmire of two judgments on identical points of law that were different.
That can't happen and Mr Miller appealed his conviction to the High Court, while the police sought to overturn Mr Haunui's acquittal.
It fell to Justice Joe Williams to sort the matter out.
In a decision released today, he outlined the judge versus judge battleline.
"When Judge Callaghan issued his decision in relation to Mr Haunui, he was aware of the first of Judge Mill's two judgments and expressly disagreed with it, giving reasons," Justice Williams said.
"When Judge Mill wrote his second decision, he was then aware of Judge Callaghan's view, and Judge Mill rejected that reasoning.
"It is this difference of opinion that falls to be resolved in the appeal before me."
Not surprisingly prosecutor Dale La Hood, representing the police, sided with Judge Mill.
Lawyer Douglas Ewen, representing the two men, did not, saying the agency must generate the notice itself.
Justice Williams agreed with Mr Ewen and his clients.
"I conclude therefore that notice was invalidly given in the case both of Mr Miller and Mr Haunui."
Mr Miller's conviction was quashed.
