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.
- Name suppression
- Open justice
- Section 200(2)(f) criminal procedure act 2011
- Section 202(4) criminal procedure act 2011
- Extension of time
- Leave to appeal