C v The King - [2023] NZHC 3099

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 AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2023-404-000439

[2023] NZHC 3099

BETWEEN
C

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 30 October 2023

Appearances:

A Bloem for the Appellant

M Mortimer-Wang for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 November 2023 at 4.00pm

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Bloem & Associates, Albany
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

C v R [2023] NZHC 3099 [2 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] C appeals a decision of Judge P J Sinclair in the Auckland District Court declining his application for permanent name suppression.1

[2] C pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and was acquitted on four charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and two charges of assault with a weapon. C is subject to a special patient order and is currently in the Mason Clinic.

Background

[3] On 23 June 2022, C, armed with a kitchen knife, rang the doorbell of the first complainant. When she opened the door he rushed at her, stabbing her to the upper chest. C then ran away down the road where he grabbed and tried to stab the second complainant who escaped uninjured.

[4] C continued running and came across the third complainant. The third complainant was walking in the other direction. From behind, C stabbed her once in the back. C then again continued running.

[5] The fourth and fifth complainants were sitting on a park bench overlooking the beach. C approached them from behind and stabbed each of them once in the back.

[6] The sixth complainant was walking along the beach and C lunged towards the complainant as she walked near him. She ran and screamed for help. C ran away but was chased by members of the public and was disarmed and restrained.

[7]C is a 42-year-old male who has not previously appeared before the court.

Grounds of appeal

[8] Two grounds of appeal are advanced. First, that the Judge erred in her assessment of the gravity of the consequences and should have found that publication

1 R v [C][2023] NZDC 16153.

would cause extreme hardship or danger to C’s safety. Second, that the Judge erred in finding that the circumstances of the case do not favour suppression.

Relevant law

[9] C relies on s 200(2)(a) and (e) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Section 200 provides:

Court may suppress identity of defendant
(1)A court may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of a person who is charged with, or convicted or acquitted of, an offence.
(2)The court may make an order under subsection (1) only if the court is satisfied that publication would be likely to:
(a)cause extreme hardship to the person charged with, or convicted of, or acquitted of…

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 C v The King

Details

AGLC: C v The King [2023] NZHC 3099
Case: [2023] NZHC 3099
Decision Date: 2 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, C appealed against a decision of the Auckland District Court which declined his application for permanent name suppression. C pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and was acquitted on four charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and two charges of assault with a weapon. C is subject to a special patient order and is currently in the Mason Clinic. The central issue before the Court was whether the Judge erred in her assessment of the gravity of the consequences and should have found that publication would cause extreme hardship or danger to C’s safety. The Court found that the Judge erred in her assessment of the gravity of the consequences. The medical evidence was uncontested and disclosed that C suffers from schizophrenia, has experienced episodes of major depression, and likely suffers from post-traumatic-like disorder associated with the offending. The medical evidence indicated that the likely short-term consequences of publication comprise relapse of his schizophrenia and/or depression and anxiety, exacerbation of his mood symptoms, paranoia, and persecutory fears of physical assault and enduring stressors. The long-term consequences were identified as impeded rehabilitation and community reintegration and emotional distress. The Court was satisfied that the risk of extreme hardship arising from C suffering a relapse of his mental illness needed to be assessed against the public interest and the primacy of open justice. While there is a legitimate public interest in knowing the identity of a person acquitted by reason of insanity, the Court was satisfied that the public interest in C’s name being published did not outweigh the potential risk to public safety if C relapses while in the community because of publication and the risk of extreme hardship to C by reason of any relapse. The appeal was allowed, and there will be an order for permanent suppression of C’s identity.

Orders