New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fair trial prejudice

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2023

R v MRL [2023] NZHC 2203

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2203
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's documented moderate depressive disorder, expert opinion that publication would likely precipitate serious dysregulation and increase self-harm risk, and the late stage of pre-trial preparation such that publicity would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial, the court concluded the s200 threshold was met (real risk to fair trial) and, on balance, protection of fair trial rights outweighed open justice; suppression was ordered and made reviewable at any time.
10 Mar 2023

WALLACE v R [2023] NZCA 56

Citation

[2023] NZCA 56
Court

Court of Appeal

Applicants failed to satisfy statutory thresholds: no demonstration of extreme or undue hardship and no real risk to fair retrial; even if thresholds were met, discretionary balancing favoured open justice given seriousness of offences and ordinary consequences of publicity, therefore suppression declined; limited extension of existing suppression granted for 20 days to permit potential Supreme Court application.
11 Aug 2021

B v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2073

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2073
Court

High Court

Admitted fresh GP letter but on cumulative assessment the appellant did not meet the high statutory threshold that publication would be likely to cause extreme hardship or create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; ordinary distress, business loss risk and family impact did not amount to the exceptional harm necessary to displace the presumption of open justice, therefore continuation of name suppression was not justified and appeal dismissed.
12 Aug 2019

N v R [2019] NZHC 1939

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1939
Court

High Court

Interim name suppression for the appellant is to continue pending a report from a suitably qualified person (and possible referral to the Children's Commissioner) assessing the potential harm to the appellant's three-year-old daughter; the District Court's refusal to suppress the defendant's name was otherwise not disturbed and the principle of open justice favors publication absent demonstrated extreme hardship; take-down application is adjourned pending formal service and responses from media outlets.
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.
16 Apr 2019

SHAYNE DUDLEY REGINALD HAYWARD v POLICE [2019] NZHC 848

Citation

[2019] NZHC 848
Court

High Court

No arguable case for extreme hardship was established: the niece's risk of bullying was speculative and the appellant's asserted mental health vulnerability was unsupported by compelling medical evidence; the threshold under s 200(2)(d) is high and, even if arguable, the discretionary balance favoured open justice, so interim name suppression was not necessary.
14 Mar 2018

SANSOM v R [2018] NZCA 49

Citation

[2018] NZCA 49
Court

Court of Appeal

Vodafone, treated as a notional s202 applicant, did not establish undue hardship beyond the ordinary consequences of publication and the appellant failed to show a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; therefore the statutory thresholds in ss200/202 were not met and suppression was not warranted, although the court stayed publication until the trial date to protect fair trial rights.

New Zealand Case Law

R v MRL [2023] NZHC 2203

WALLACE v R [2023] NZCA 56

B v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2073

N v R [2019] NZHC 1939

JAMIE MATHEW HAYWARD v POLICE [2019] NZHC 847

SHAYNE DUDLEY REGINALD HAYWARD v POLICE [2019] NZHC 848

SANSOM v R [2018] NZCA 49