R v X [2022] NZHC 1752

R v X [2022] NZHC 1752

The Court held that s205 applies to evidence adduced at pre-trial hearings, but the Crown failed to show publication of the redacted passages concerning CIPEM would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law; the asserted prejudices were speculative, much of the technique is publicly accessible, and the public interest in disclosure and scrutiny outweighed confidentiality; accordingly the redactions and suppression orders were quashed and the judgment to be reissued unless stayed on appeal.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 1752
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: X; Intervener/media Applicant: Stuff Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal (murder Prosecution) / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing and Suppression/revocation Application
Outcome
Redactions lifted and suppression orders quashed; judgment to be reissued unless an appeal is filed by the Court of Appeal deadline
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Confidentiality of Investigative Techniques, Pre Trial Hearings, Evidence Admissibility, Public Interest Disclosure
Criminal Procedure Evidence Media Law Administrative Law Suppression Orders Confidentiality of Investigative Techniques Pre Trial Hearings Evidence Admissibility +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

X

Defendant

Stuff Ltd

Intervener/media Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (murder Prosecution) / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing and Suppression/revocation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 205 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 permits suppression of evidence at pre-trial hearings
  2. 2 Whether the statutory threshold (likelihood of prejudice to maintenance of the law) for suppression was met
  3. 3 Whether redactions to the judgment and suppression of discussion of CIPEM were lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that s205 applies to evidence adduced at pre-trial hearings, but the Crown failed to show publication of the redacted passages concerning CIPEM would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law; the asserted prejudices were speculative, much of the technique is publicly accessible, and the public interest in disclosure and scrutiny outweighed confidentiality; accordingly the redactions and suppression orders were quashed and the judgment to be reissued unless stayed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Redactions lifted and suppression orders quashed; judgment to be reissued unless an appeal is filed by the Court of Appeal deadline

Orders

  • Redactions in the judgment of 17 September 2021 are lifted
  • Orders suppressing evidence and submissions relating to CIPEM are quashed