A v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 3412

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT/DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-000457

[2019] NZHC 3412

BETWEEN
A

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 17 December 2019

Appearances:

P Hamlin for the Appellant E Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 19 December 2019 at 9:00 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland Counsel: Mr P Hamlin, Auckland

A v R [2019] NZHC 3412 [19 December 2019]

Summary

[1] On 4 October 2019, A was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention in the Auckland District Court on charges of:

(a)Doing an indecent act on a young person;

(b)Meeting a young person following sexual grooming;

(c)Exposing a young person to indecent material;

(d)Supplying cannabis to a person under 18 years old (x 2); and

(e)Attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[2] Judge Field declined to make an order placing her on the Child Sex Offender Register as he was of the view that she did not pose an ongoing risk to children, but declined to grant permanent name suppression. This is an appeal against that decision. A bases her appeal on the consequences of publication for her husband (H) and their three teenage children (C1, C2 and C3).

Background

[3] A was a social worker with Oranga Tamariki. The offending occurred after she took over the case of the first complainant aged 15, who lived with the second complainant, aged 14. She visited the address frequently and was in constant contact with the first complainant over a period of weeks.

[4] She supplied both complainants with cannabis. She exchanged nude pictures with the first complainant and requested pictures of his penis. She also met him outside her role as a social worker and kissed him on a number of occasions.

[5] When she found out that the first complainant’s grandfather had gone to the police, she asked him to say that nothing had happened and delete their photos and messages.

District Court Decision

[6] Judge Field noted that the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 was quite clear in its terms and that he had to be satisfied that publication of A’s name would cause extreme hardship to the children. He accepted that there would be stress caused to the children by publication of their mother’s name and that there was already a hint, and perhaps more than a hint, of mental disturbance in the children, as they awaited the outcome of the proceedings.

[7] In the end, the Judge accepted the consequences as outlined, but did believe they could be mitigated with the input of A herself, with appropriate counselling and assistance.

Law

[8] The Court’s power under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to grant name suppression requires a two-stage analysis.1

[9] First, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A v The Queen

Details

AGLC: A v The Queen [2019] NZHC 3412
Case: [2019] NZHC 3412
Decision Date: 19 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of A v The Queen involved an appeal against a decision by the Auckland District Court, where the appellant, A, was sentenced to 10 months' home detention for various offences, including indecent acts on a young person and supplying cannabis to minors. The appellant sought to appeal the District Court's decision to decline her application for permanent name suppression. The appeal centred on the potential consequences of publication for her husband and three teenage children. The High Court was required to decide whether the appellant's name suppression should be granted under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court conducted a two-stage analysis to determine if suppression was warranted, considering whether publication would likely cause extreme hardship or endanger the safety of any person, and whether open justice should yield to suppression. The court found that the evidence presented by the appellant's counsel demonstrated a real and appreciable possibility that publication would cause extreme hardship, particularly for the youngest child who had self-harmed and expressed a likelihood of attempting suicide if name suppression was lifted. The court held that the balance clearly favoured suppression in this case, given the serious consequences for the family and the fact that the appellant's name had already been partially disclosed in the media. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the court issued an order forbidding the publication of A's name, address, and any details which may identify her.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against the decision of the District Court was allowed, and an order was made forbidding publication of A's name, address, and any details which may identify her pursuant to s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Orders