3 Nov 2023
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and narrowed the central legal question to the applicability of s 16(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006 to the established facts; the correctness of the Court of Appeal's dismissal turns on that statutory provision.
23 May 2023
Leave to appeal was granted because the proposed appeals raised questions of general or public importance about the intersection of youth justice, rehabilitation prospects and risks arising from publication with open justice principles; an interim order suppressing LF's identifying particulars was justified to prevent rendering LF's appeal nugatory and to protect safety pending determination of the appeals.
9 Dec 2022
The application to lift automatic name suppression was declined and a permanent prohibition on publication of the defendant's name, address and occupation was ordered under s200(1) because publication would lead to identification of other complainants whose names are suppressed, as provided by s200(2)(f).
1 Dec 2022
The Court found the stage one threshold in s205(2) was met because publication of the detailed summary of facts posed a real and appreciable risk of copycat offending that would cause undue hardship to Transpower, endanger public safety and prejudice security; on stage two balancing, the risk to safety and security outweighed the presumption of open justice and justified a partial permanent suppression limiting publication to non‑technical, high level facts only.
26 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues advanced were either questions of fact specific to this case or not of general or public importance, there was no real risk of miscarriage in the decisions below, and the courts below lawfully applied the tests for undue hardship and exceptional circumstances; suppression was continued briefly until 2 pm 28 October 2022 to allow preparation for publication.
2 Dec 2021
The application for recall is dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a Court of Appeal recall decision, nothing raised demonstrates the earlier Supreme Court judgment was erroneous on the material then before the Court, the new evidence is not sufficiently fresh or straightforward given the expert's prior role and change of view and other evidential complications, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission is the preferable and available forum to investigate and, if warranted, refer the convictions; there is no urgent need to displace the judgment.
11 Nov 2021
Permanent name suppression granted for A because medical evidence showed a real and appreciable risk that publication would cause extreme hardship and endanger his safety; suppression for B and C granted because identification of any one would likely identify the others (s200(2)(f)) and the Crown offered no evidence leading to dismissal; Northpower's separate name suppression declined but publication of a specified fact regarding Northpower was suppressed.
9 Sept 2021
The application for recall is dismissed because nothing raised by the applicant established the exceptional circumstances required to recall the Court's judgment; additionally the Court held the limited publication exception applies only to law reports or law digests and that other publication prior to final disposition of trial would breach suppression orders.
20 Aug 2020
The court held that s 200(2)(a) threshold was met because reliable forensic psychiatric evidence established publication would be likely to cause extreme hardship and relapse; balancing the limited public interest in publication against the significant public interest in K's rehabilitation, the court exercised its discretion to grant permanent name suppression and associated non-publication and access restrictions.
9 Dec 2019
The judge concluded that, on balance, the risk to the affected witness's mental health and the need to allow treatment warranted a limited extension of the suppression order; accordingly suppression was extended to 5.00 pm on 17 January 2020 as a proportionate measure that accommodates the Crown's interest in publicity while protecting the witness and allowing the defendant the opportunity to appeal.