PARKER v R [2020] NZCA 524

PARKER v R [2020] NZCA 524 [22 October 2020]INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,OCCUPATION AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANTPURSUANT TO S 292 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT ON THETERMS SET OUT AT [6] OF THIS JUDGMENT.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA372/2020[2020] NZCA 524BETWEEN JOSEPH PARKERAppellantAND THE QUEENFirst RespondentSTUFF LIMITEDSecond RespondentCourt: Kós P, Wylie and Muir JJCounsel: M R Heron QC, C E M Agnew-Harrington and I M Brookie forAppellantR K Thomson for First RespondentR K P Stewart for Second RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)22 October 2020 at 3 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTInterim order prohibiting publication of the appellant's name, address,occupation and identifying particulars pursuant to s 292 of the CriminalProcedure Act 2011 on the terms set out at [6] of this judgment.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Kós P)[1] Mr Parker's fourth attempt to obtain name suppression, as a person connectedwith a criminal proceeding, failed before this Court on Friday.1 Despite that, by aprocess of appeals and renewed applications Mr Parker has achieved namesuppression for almost 18 months. In our judgment released on Friday we grantedleave to file a memorandum in support of an application for interim name suppressionunder s 292 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 by 3 pm on Wednesday 21 October2020. Suppression of Mr Parker's identifying details was to continue until 3 pm onFriday 23 October 2020, unless extended under s 292.[2] Mr Parker's counsel has filed a memorandum in support of an application forinterim name suppression within the specified time frame. The memorandumconfirms that a notice of application for leave to appeal will be lodged withthe Supreme Court. Mr Parker seeks a further interim order for suppression of hisname, address and occupation and any other particulars likely to lead to hisidentification, pursuant to s 292.[3] The respondents do not oppose the granting of interim name suppressionpending determination of the forthcoming application for leave to appeal to theSupreme Court, on the basis that the application will be filed within the statutory timeframe. That is, by 5 pm on Monday 16 November 2020. If not, name suppressionshould lapse.[4] Section 292 provides:292 Interim suppression order pending determination of secondappeal(1) This section applies if the applicant for the suppression order satisfiesthe first appeal court that an appeal against the court's determinationunder section 287 is to be filed under section 291.(2) The court may make an interim order to the effect sought bythe applicant.1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 202; and Parker v R [2020] NZCA 502.(3) An interim order made under subsection (2) continues in force until—(a) the expiry of the period specified in section 291(2) for filinga notice of application for leave to appeal; or(b) the appeal is finally determined, if the notice is filed withinthat specified period and leave is given.[5] The decision to grant an interim suppression order is a discretionary one.With some reluctance, given the passage of time and compilation of concurrentdecisions refusing suppression, we will grant the application. We do so for tworeasons. First, that course was taken by this Court on the occasion of the lastapplication to the Supreme Court.2 Secondly, to do otherwise would effectively denythe Supreme Court the ability to consider the intended application, which Mr Parkercertainly has the right to bring.Result[6] We make an interim order prohibiting publication of the appellant's name,address, occupation and identifying particulars until:(a) the expiry of the period specified in s 291(2) for the filing of a noticeof application for leave to appeal (which period expires 5 pm onMonday 16 November 2020) if no application for leave is filed in time;or(b) further order of the Supreme Court.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent2 Parker v R [2019] NZCA 358. Ultimately a fresh application was made in the High Court, andthe application to the Supreme Court was abandoned.