Legal Research
Cases
Allied Press Ltd v S

Allied Press Ltd v S

Case [2023] NZHC 1343 29 May 2023

Presumption of Innocence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED/DEFENDANT(S) PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2023-476-000007

[2023] NZHC 1343

BETWEEN
ALLIED PRESS LTD

Appellant

AND

S

First Respondent

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Second Respondent

Hearing: 29 May 2023

Appearances:

L S Collins for the Appellant

J J McCall for the First Respondent
A M MacRae for the Second Respondent

Judgment:

29 May 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] On 7 February 2023, Judge Farish, in the Timaru District Court, continued the interim suppression order prohibiting publication of Ms S’s name. Allied Press Ltd, the owner of Otago Daily Times, now appeals the decision.

ALLIED PRESS LTD v S [2023] NZHC 1343 [29 May 2023]

[2] Ms S opposes the appeal. The Police maintain their initial opposition to the lifting of name suppression which Ms MacRae for the Crown confirms before me, but formally they will abide the decision of the Court here.

Facts

[3] Ms S faces one charge of theft of between $500 and $1,000,1 and four charges of theft under $500.2 Ms S is . It is alleged that the thefts took place in the

. Ms S is alleged to have stolen two pairs of airpod

earphones and cash from while they had left their belongings in the in the course of conducting their work.

Parties’ positions

[4] The appellant contends the Judge in the District Court erred by not complying with s 200(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Suppression in this case, Mr Collins says, goes against the principles of open justice. The value and necessity of open justice is heightened in this case because of Ms S’s profession. There is a genuine and legitimate public interest in reporting on Ms S’s identity.

[5] Ms S, the first respondent, submits that the lifting of suppression would cause extreme hardship to her, relying on s 200(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. This would involve serious mental health consequences for Ms S, and serious ramifications for Ms S’s current employment and her future prospects, as well as for Ms S’s current employer.

[6] As I understand it, the second respondent, the Police, consented to this existing name suppression for Ms S on her initial application until determination of the propensity applications and/or her trial. This was on the basis that the employment and mental health consequences that may result from publication would amount to extreme hardship for Ms S. Before me here, the Police continue to maintain this position.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(c) carry a maximum sentence of one year’s imprisonment.
2 Sections 219 and 223(d) carry a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment.

Relevant law

[7] Courts may suppress the identity of a defendant under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The starting point for a s 200 analysis is the principle of open…

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 Allied Press Ltd v S

Details

AGLC: Allied Press Ltd v S [2023] NZHC 1343
Case: [2023] NZHC 1343
Decision Date: 29 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry, Allied Press Ltd, the owner of Otago Daily Times, appealed against the decision of the Timaru District Court, which had continued an interim suppression order prohibiting the publication of Ms S's name. Ms S opposed the appeal, while the Police maintained their opposition to the lifting of the name suppression but would abide by the Court's decision. The primary legal issue was whether the District Court judge erred in not complying with section 200(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which mandates that suppression orders are to be made in restricted circumstances and the threshold is high. The court considered the two-stage test under section 200, which involves a threshold determination followed by a discretionary assessment. The court found that the District Court judge's decision to continue the interim name suppression was correct, given the minor seriousness of the charges, the potential for serious mental health consequences, and the risk of harm to Ms S's employment prospects. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim suppression order prohibiting the publication of both Ms S's name and her profession as a police officer would continue.

Orders