New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extreme hardship threshold

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2022

PURUTANGA v THE KING [2022] NZHC 2616

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2616
Court

High Court

The psychologist's evidence did not establish the high threshold of extreme or undue hardship to the children from publication of the father's name; much publicity has already occurred and further publicity is likely transient; balancing the statutory interests against open justice, suppression was not justified and the application is dismissed, subject to a brief extension of interim suppression to allow carers to prepare children.
20 Jul 2022

R v EF and FG [2022] NZHC 1741

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1741
Court

High Court

The judge found the threshold for non‑publication crossed in respect of EF because publication would create an appreciable risk that third parties would exploit publication to dissuade particular clients from continuing EF's instruction, producing extreme hardship to those clients beyond ordinary consequences; on discretionary balancing open justice yielded and a non‑publication order forbidding publication of EF's name, address and occupation was made under s200(1).
29 Mar 2022

PINKERTON v R [2022] NZHC 603

Citation

[2022] NZHC 603
Court

High Court

The threshold in s 200(2)(a) was not satisfied because the harms claimed (financial loss, embarrassment, distress to family) are within the range of consequences normally attendant on criminal charges and fall short of the very high 'extreme hardship' standard; accordingly the balancing exercise would not clearly favour suppression and the application was dismissed (but interim suppression extended briefly).
19 Dec 2019

A v R [2019] NZHC 3412

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3412
Court

High Court

The High Court found that the evidence established a real and appreciable risk of extreme hardship and endangerment to the 13-year-old daughter (C3) if the appellant's name were published, that available mitigation was unlikely to avert that risk, and that, on balance and given the special circumstances of pervasive prior publicity and low public interest in further identification for deterrence or protection, the balance clearly favoured suppression under s200; accordingly the appeal was allowed and a suppression order issued.
1 Oct 2019

DANNY LEEF v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZCA 467

Citation

[2019] NZCA 467
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because an arguable error in the High Court's assessment of extreme hardship was reasonably available; the application to adduce further evidence was declined because the affidavit was not fresh or sufficiently cogent and the letter was not admissible; on the merits the appeal was dismissed because publication of the appellant's name was unlikely to cause the extreme hardship required to justify permanent suppression of the Marae or Mrs Leef.
16 Apr 2019

JAMIE MATHEW HAYWARD v POLICE [2019] NZHC 847

Citation

[2019] NZHC 847
Court

High Court

No arguable case of extreme hardship was established on the evidence; presumption of innocence does not displace open justice on its own; even if arguable, balancing of interests did not justify interim name suppression, so the appeal is dismissed.
14 Aug 2018

QUIRKE v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 2072

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2072
Court

High Court

Judge Kellar did not err: the appellants did not establish the high statutory threshold of 'extreme hardship' from publication and, even if that threshold were met, the countervailing public interest in open justice (including the victim's clear view favoring publication) meant the discretion to suppress would not be exercised; appeal dismissed and interim suppression refused.

New Zealand Case Law

PURUTANGA v THE KING [2022] NZHC 2616

R v EF and FG [2022] NZHC 1741

PINKERTON v R [2022] NZHC 603

A v R [2019] NZHC 3412

DANNY LEEF v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZCA 467

JAMIE MATHEW HAYWARD v POLICE [2019] NZHC 847

QUIRKE v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 2072