HADEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 255

HADEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 255 [16 July 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA171/2018[2018] NZCA 255BETWEEN GRACE HADENApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: French, Duffy and Katz JJCounsel: Applicant in personH G Max for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)16 July 2018 at 11 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Duffy J)[1] Following trial by Judge alone in the District Court, Grace Haden was foundguilty and convicted of five charges of breaching suppression orders contrary to ss 240and 263 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.1[2] The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal("the Tribunal") has permanently suppressed the identity of a practitioner who was1 Police v Haden [2017] NZDC 28419.found guilty of one charge of negligence.2 Ms Haden believed she knew the identityof the practitioner and so she posted the identity in a blog post on her website"Transparency New Zealand". This was followed by four further posts to the sameeffect.[3] Ms Haden's appeal against her convictions to the High Court was dismissed.3She now seeks leave to bring a second appeal to this Court.[4] Section 237(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides that this Courtmust not give leave for a second appeal unless satisfied that:(a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or(b) a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless theappeal is heard.[5] Ms Haden is self-represented. She relies upon both limbs of s 237(2) andadvances the following arguments based on a breach of the rule of law:(a) the Tribunal did not make a specific order granting name suppressionwhich means it is being applied to an anonymous person by undefinedmeans;(b) the form of the charging documents is incorrect; and(c) there was no proper basis for the charges laid against her.[6] Ms Haden's arguments were rejected in the Courts below. We agree with theirreasoning. The Tribunal is clearly empowered to make suppression orders whichsuppress the identity of those who appear before the Tribunal.4 Such orders do not2 Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No 2 v M [2016] NZLCDT 34 [penalty decision]at [28]; following an interim decision on name suppression: Waikato Bay of Plenty StandardsCommittee No 2 v W [2016] NZLCDT 19 [interim decision].3 Haden v Police [2018] NZHC 498 [HC decision].4 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 240.require any specific form. Here the Tribunal's decision identifies the subject of thesuppression order as well as the basis for making it.5[7] We agree with Clark J that the form of the charging documents gave Ms Hadenadequate notice of the charges she faced.6 There is no question of non-compliancewith the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act.7[8] We find Ms Haden's argument there was no proper basis for laying the chargesagainst her to be misconceived. There was sufficient evidence to support the findingsof guilt reached by Judge Adeane and affirmed by Clark J. The first post referreddirectly to the suppression order and then suggested (correctly) who the subjectpractitioner might be. The subsequent posts referred back to the first post, thuscompounding the first breach of the suppression order.[9] In conclusion, we are satisfied none of the arguments which Ms Hadenadvances raises a matter of general or public importance. All the issues Ms Hadenraises are case-specific. Nor do Ms Haden's arguments suggest a miscarriage ofjustice has occurred or may occur if the proposed appeal is not heard.[10] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent5 Interim decision, above n 2, at [2]–[5] and [7]; penalty decision, above n 2, at [22]–[28].6 HC decision, above n 3, at [31].7 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 14–17.