20 Oct 2022
The appellant failed to establish any s 200(2) threshold ground: social media commentary and speculative employment detriment do not amount to extreme hardship, and the risk to a fair trial is insufficient given existing publicity, the passage of time before trial, and judicial directions to jurors; accordingly interim name suppression was properly refused.
19 May 2021
All applications were dismissed: recall failed because no very special reason or material issue warranting recall; leave to appeal cannot be granted by this Court as the correct procedure lies with the Court of Appeal and the 20 working day window had expired; interim suppression was refused because the evidence did not establish harm causally attributable to the 5 March 2021 judgment and open justice outweighed suppression; stay was refused because there was no active appeal/leave application before the Court and the balance favoured the respondent; due to allegations of risk the court direc…
11 May 2021
The High Court has power to modify a Tribunal's interim suppression order and, on the facts and submissions presented, it was appropriate to extend name suppression to continue until the Tribunal's determination; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order modified to that effect.
22 Dec 2020
The application for access to pleadings and other non-judgment court documents is declined at this stage because the fair and orderly administration of justice and ANZ's legitimate confidentiality and privacy interests outweigh the open justice interest until the pleadings have closed; judgments and minutes may be released, and the access application may be renewed and will be reviewed at or after the upcoming case management conference with a view to granting access after close of pleadings, subject to redactions and suppression orders.
14 Oct 2020
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the District Court judge did not err in finding an arguable case of extreme hardship sufficient for an interim suppression order on first appearance and in exercising his discretion to continue interim name suppression pending the defendants' next appearance because the balance of competing interests clearly favoured suppression in the circumstances.
25 Sept 2020
Leave to appeal was granted because the interlocutory issues were capable of serious argument and involved public and private interests sufficient to justify expedited appellate consideration; the interim suppression was extended only briefly to preserve NZ First's right of appeal because allowing publication would effectively decide the appeal and the balance of interests justified a short preservation of suppression until the Court of Appeal could address the matter.
19 Dec 2019
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because errors in the lower courts' assessment of s 200(2)(d) were identified, but fresh evidence was rightly declined as not fresh or necessary; on rehearing the Court concluded that although publication of the appellant's name would add to the body of adverse publicity, the additional prejudice could be adequately addressed by tailored judicial directions and other measures, so publication would not create a real risk of prejudice to AB's fair trial rights and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Sept 2019
Given the child's age (2) and that she has been cared for by an aunt with only infrequent contact with the appellant, the Court found there was no reasonable basis to conclude publication would cause the threshold/extreme harm required for ongoing suppression; a Children's Commissioner report was unnecessary; open justice favoured publication; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and only a short interim extension of suppression was granted to permit further application pending appeal.
5 Jul 2019
A court renewing an interim suppression order must itself be satisfied that one or more s 200(2) grounds are made out and must give reasons; reliance on parties' consent or non-opposition without judicial engagement and reasons does not satisfy s 200(5) and s 207; accordingly the District Court's order continuing interim name suppression on 21 May 2019 was set aside, with deferred effect to allow proper application to be made.
13 Mar 2019
The judge was not satisfied that the required threshold of undue or extreme hardship to the defendant's family existed; the open justice principle therefore outweighs the claimed family hardship and the interim suppression must lapse; the same reasoning applies to the deceased victim's name, which must not remain suppressed.