New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 200 criminal procedure act 2011

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2023

F v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3622

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3622
Court

High Court

Publication of the appellant's identity was likely to threaten the protective factors sustaining X's long‑standing persistent depressive disorder and to expose her to a real and appreciable risk of severe relapse and self‑harm; that risk met the threshold under s 200(2)(e) (danger to safety) and amounted to extreme hardship, and on balancing the competing public interest in open justice against the significant risk to X's safety the court exercised its discretion to grant permanent name suppression to protect her.
2 Nov 2023

C v R [2023] NZHC 3099

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3099
Court

High Court

Uncontested psychiatric evidence established a real and appreciable risk that publication would cause extreme hardship (relapse of schizophrenia, severe emotional distress, impeded rehabilitation) and could exacerbate suicide risk; those risks could not be dismissed as remote and, when balanced against open justice and public interest in a serious public stabbing acquittal, the risks favoured permanent suppression; the District Court judge erred and suppression was ordered.
29 May 2023

R v B MANUEL [2023] NZHC 1304

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1304
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to establish any threshold in s 200(2); the evidence showed threats had occurred while interim suppression was in place and there was no appreciable risk that lifting suppression would likely cause extreme hardship or endanger safety, therefore continued name suppression was not justified and was refused.
23 Mar 2023

L v R [2023] NZHC 600

Citation

[2023] NZHC 600
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to meet the high evidential threshold under s 200(2); psychiatric evidence was tentative, there was no affidavit or direct evidence from the defendant establishing a real and appreciable risk that publication would increase her suicidality or impede her trial participation, and protective factors (custody, prison and forensic mental health treatment and medication) mitigated that risk; therefore continued interim name suppression was declined.
14 Mar 2023

M (SC 123/2022) v R [2023] NZSC 19

Citation

[2023] NZSC 19
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the appeal standard issue was not appropriate for determination on this leave application (Court of Appeal had not addressed the point) and the appeal standard was not determinative of the outcome; there is no appearance of miscarriage on the merits in the Court of Appeal's treatment of the suppression application and no error identified that would justify granting leave.
19 Dec 2022

STUFF LTD v M [2022] NZHC 3538

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3538
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court: evidence (including uncontradicted expert opinion and corroborating family evidence) established publication would be likely to endanger the respondent's safety and cause extreme hardship by materially increasing a sustained suicide risk driven by public humiliation; balancing open justice against that real risk, suppression was properly exercised and must continue; appeal dismissed.
3 Aug 2022

R v NIKLAS GEBHARDT [2022] NZHC 1914

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1914
Court

High Court

The application for permanent suppression was declined because the defendant failed to meet the high statutory threshold of 'extreme hardship' under s200(2)(a) and, on discretionary balancing, the public interest in open justice and transparency about prosecutorial charging and withdrawal decisions outweighed the speculative or non‑quantified risk of psychological harm absent compelling evidence of likely decompensation.
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).
13 Apr 2022

WOOD v POLICE [2022] NZHC 763

Citation

[2022] NZHC 763
Court

High Court

Evidence did not establish the high 'extreme hardship' threshold in s 200(2)(a) and the discretionary balancing did not clearly favour suppression; the District Court's refusal to continue name suppression was correct and was accordingly upheld on appeal.
28 Jul 2021

DONGA v R [2021] NZHC 1927

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1927
Court

High Court

Threshold in s 200(2)(a) not satisfied: publication would cause distress and some adverse career consequences but not the very high level of 'extreme hardship' required; consequences to wife and children were ordinary or speculative; even if threshold met, discretionary balance favoured publication because open justice and public interest (including protecting an innocent third party and enabling employers/patients to make informed choices) outweighed suppression; appeal dismissed.