R v STEVENS [2016] NZHC 994

R v STEVENS [2016] NZHC 994 [17 May 2016]THE DEFENDANT'S NAME IS SUPPRESSED UNTILFRIDAY, 20 MAY 2016 AT 4.00 PM. SUPPRESSION WILLCONTINUE BEYOND THAT IF AN APPEAL IS FILED BY THEN.THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP TO MR SHAAN STEVENSIS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANYPART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWSMEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLEDATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION INLAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCRI 2016-085-933[2016] NZHC 994THE QUEENvMARK DAVID STEVENSHearing: 16 May 2016Counsel: P K Feltham for CrownJ M Ablett-Kerr QC and G R Fulton for DefendantJudgment: 17 May 2016JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE JIntroduction[1] Mr Stevens is charged with murder. He seeks name suppression through totrial. The basis for the application is that his brother has been convicted of high profilefrauds, and any public association with him will impact negatively on the defendant.His fair trial rights will thereby be undermined.[2] Mr Shaan Stevens, the defendant's brother, was convicted on fraud chargesseveral years ago. He then gave evidence on the trial of the two principals in theoffending – Messrs Rowley and Skinner. They were Wellington accountants who wereconvicted of serious tax fraud. Their trial at the time had some public interest.1[3] I am advised Mr Shaan Stevens was a person of some prominence prior to himpleading guilty to multiple charges of using a document with intent to defraud. Heheld a position on the University Council and was chair of Wellington FreeAmbulance. The point being, his then prominence means there may be some publicmemory of his offending. Mrs Ablett-Kerr QC identified the concern as being a likelyheadline "Fraudster's brother charged with murder".[4] In support it is noted that a witness connected to the victim made the followingstatement about the defendant:I also thought he was dodgy due to his family situation and past drug issuesand I couldn't understand why Mark was still driving his mother's car QUENI.I Googled Shaan STEVENS and saw that he had been convicted for fraud andstill owed money yet Mark was driving his mother's car.I thought it seemed dodgy, as he and his mother had moved to Cambodia andif they owed money for fraud, the car and other belongings would have beentaken to repay debts.[5] I am also advised Mr Shaan Stevens has been contacted overseas for commenton his brother's situation.[6] Mrs Ablett-Kerr submits this illustrates the type of prejudice the defendant willface if his name is published. Although a Judge will direct a jury to ignore suchmatters, there will be a year of this type of public linking prior to then.[7] The application is opposed.1 The appeal confirming their convictions and sentences is Rowley and Skinner v R [2015]NZCA 233.Analysis[8] I accept a public link with his brother will be drawn once Mr Stevens' namesuppression is lifted. It is not a link of any particular relevance, but it is a "curiosity"that will be identified. It may for a while obtain prominence.[9] That said, it is very difficult to see there is any real risk of prejudice to a trialto be held in nine months time. There is nothing in the alleged facts that involveMr Shaan Stevens, nor is there anything in the alleged offending that involvesdishonest conduct. The defendant is alleged to have deliberately driven his car overhis partner, thereby causing her death. Notwithstanding the statement of one witnessabout a "dodgy" family, it is hard to see that anyone could see Mr Shaan Stevens'actions as being applicable or relevant to his brother's situation.[10] Further, if there were such a risk, it is a very easy matter to direct a jury on.The lack of any rational connection between the two would be readily appreciated byjurors who probably would be puzzled at why it is being raised.[11] The Crown suggest, and the defendant adopts as a fall-back position, that therecould be limited suppression concerning the familial link. I have decided out of anabundance of caution to accede to this. I do so because:(a) the passage cited from the witness statement suggests some may drawa link between Mr Shaan Stevens' "dodgy" conduct and the defendant;(b) there is no compelling public interest in immediately identifying thefamily connection. It is irrelevant to the charge. The public interestfactor in two brothers being in their respective situations is not pressingfrom a timing aspect. It will hold the same "value" after trial that it hasnow.[12] It is probable that the suppression order will not prevent keen researchers fromidentifying the link, but it will curtail its public dissemination in either digital or printform.Decision[13] The application for name suppression until trial is declined.[14] I order that until final disposition of trial it is not permissible in the news mediaor otherwise to publish the familial link between the defendant and his brotherMr Shaan Stevens. That will obviously extend to specifically identifying otherrelatives. This order does not purport to extend to existing publicity such as to requireany removal of dated posts but there is to be no fresh dissemination.[15] The same reasons that underlie that order mean this judgment must besuppressed until final disposition.[16] The application having been declined, I maintain suppression until 4.00 pmFriday, 20 May 2016 to allow any appeal rights to be exercised. If an appeal is filedthen name suppression automatically continues until the appeal is resolved.___________________________Simon France J