New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Name suppression

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

CAO v FARROW [2023] NZHC 3703

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3703
Court

High Court

The juror intentionally researched Stuff's editorial code during the trial and ought to have known it was relevant; the court found guilt beyond reasonable doubt under s13 and, balancing deterrence, prejudice risk, the juror's remorse and low culpability, imposed a $250 fine; publication of the juror's name was suppressed except insofar as he may be identified as a juror in this trial because the public interest could be served without naming him.
12 Dec 2023

WEDGWOOD v R [2023] NZCA 638

Citation

[2023] NZCA 638
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court concluded the record showed reasonable accommodations were made and that appellant, with counsel, had the opportunity to consider and enter guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily; there was no persuasive evidence his medical conditions or custody treatment prevented him understanding or intending his pleas or that the convictions were unjust, so no miscarriage of justice arose and the appeal was dismissed.
7 Dec 2023

CONNOR SEAN CLAYTON NEVIN v R [2023] NZSC 160

Citation

[2023] NZSC 160
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed an extension of time but refused leave to appeal because the High Court correctly applied settled law: s 200(2)(f) does not automatically mandate suppression nor was it misread to require extreme hardship in this case, s 202(4) does not create a presumption for suppression of a defendant, and the High Court reasonably exercised its discretion on the facts where risks to the school were limited and mitigable and the public interest and victim's views outweighed suppression.
22 Nov 2023

R v Y [2023] NZHC 3332

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3332
Court

High Court

Continued name suppression for the defendant (Y) pending his conviction appeal was denied because the court was not satisfied there remained a real and appreciable risk to a fair retrial that could not be adequately mitigated given the delay until any retrial and available measures (strong jury directions, potential juror screening); however, the trustees (R and F) satisfied the threshold of undue hardship and, on balance, permanent non-publication orders were justified. A targeted content/non-publication regime protecting trustees and beneficiaries (including S) is workable and sufficient to…
17 Nov 2023

JASBIR BALBIR SINGH v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2023] NZSC 152

Citation

[2023] NZSC 152
Court

Supreme Court

The Court refused leave because the application raised no matter of public importance nor appearance of miscarriage of justice, the Court of Appeal correctly applied Almond v Read to refuse extension of time given prejudice, inadequate explanation and no realistic prospects, the HRRT time limit in s123 could not be extended, the General Proceedings were an abuse of process, and there was no basis for name suppression.
15 Nov 2023

COREY REUBEN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZCA 564

Citation

[2023] NZCA 564
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the appellant "has had" a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending, the evidence did not establish that he presently poses a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence as required by s 107I(2)(b)(i) and s 107IAA; expert opinion indicated risk was principally for non-relevant exposure offences and not a current high risk of relevant (contact or qualifying) sexual offending, so, given the significant rights limitations of an ESO and the requirement for strong justification, the ESO was quashed.
10 Nov 2023

LONG v R [2023] NZCA 561

Citation

[2023] NZCA 561
Court

Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence was admitted but did not materially alter the state of the evidence or create a real prospect of a different outcome; the jury was entitled to convict on the evidence presented because accidental explanations were reasonably excluded on the totality of the complainants' accounts and propensity evidence; mixed verdicts were reconcilable given differing likelihoods of detection and the jury were properly directed; the propensity and representative charge directions were adequate; name suppression statutory thresholds were not met and open justice predominated; accordingly appeal…
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.
1 Nov 2023

VAN BEYNEN v BIRCHFIELD [2023] NZHC 3072

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3072
Court

High Court

On fresh assessment the appellant proved the District Court judge erred: the evidential material did not support a real and appreciable risk of 'extreme hardship' under s 200(2)(a) CPA, so the statutory threshold was not met and interim name suppression could not be justified; accordingly the appeal is allowed and suppression is set aside.
26 Oct 2023

ASTON EDWARD WILLIAM ERNEST WEDGWOOD v R [2023] NZSC 139

Citation

[2023] NZSC 139
Court

Supreme Court

The Court granted an extension of time but dismissed leave to appeal because the applicant's submissions raised no question of general or public importance and the factual and evidential material lacked sufficient prospects of success to meet the statutory test for name suppression or to show a miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal's assessment that the statutory thresholds were not met was sound.