R v AB [2022] NZHC 1339

R v AB [2022] NZHC 1339

The defendant failed to establish the statutory threshold under s200(2) because the online abuse, while deplorable and harmful, was not shown to be of the exceptional comparative magnitude required for 'extreme' or 'undue' hardship attributable to publication of accounts relating to this proceeding; nor was there sufficient evidence of real risk to a fair trial or danger to safety, so renewed interim name suppression was not justified (suppression only to continue pending expiry of appeal period or determination of any appeal).

Citation
[2022] NZHC 1339
Parties
Crown/prosecution: The Queen; Defendant/applicant for Suppression: AB; Co Defendant: BC; Victim: CD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Manslaughter and Assault / Interim Name Suppression Application Pre Trial
Outcome
Application for renewed interim name suppression declined; existing interim suppression continued only until the later of the appeal period expiry or determination of any appeal
Legal Topics
Name Suppression, Open Justice, Presumption of Innocence, Social Media Harassment, Extreme Hardship Test
Criminal Law Media and Publication Law Privacy Law Procedural Law Name Suppression Open Justice Presumption of Innocence Social Media Harassment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Crown/prosecution

AB

Defendant/applicant for Suppression

BC

Co Defendant

CD

Victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal Manslaughter and Assault / Interim Name Suppression Application Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the defendant's name would be likely to cause 'extreme hardship' under section 200(2)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 2011
  2. 2 Whether publication would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial (s200(2)(d))
  3. 3 Whether publication would endanger safety of any person (s200(2)(e))

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish the statutory threshold under s200(2) because the online abuse, while deplorable and harmful, was not shown to be of the exceptional comparative magnitude required for 'extreme' or 'undue' hardship attributable to publication of accounts relating to this proceeding; nor was there sufficient evidence of real risk to a fair trial or danger to safety, so renewed interim name suppression was not justified (suppression only to continue pending expiry of appeal period or determination of any appeal).

Court Disposition

Application for renewed interim name suppression declined; existing interim suppression continued only until the later of the appeal period expiry or determination of any appeal

Orders

  • Application for renewal of interim name suppression declined
  • Existing interim name suppression continued until the later of expiry of the period within which to appeal the decision or determination of any such appeal