Chand v Internal Affairs Department - [2016] NZHC 3112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000412
CRI-2016-404-000415
CRI-2016-404-000417
CRI-2016-404-000418

CRI-2016-404-000419 [2016] NZHC 3112

BETWEEN
RAKESH CHAND

VIJENDRA PRASAD BINESH PRATAP PRADEEP CHAND

SHREE SANATAN PRATANIDHI DHARAM SABHA MANUKAU BRANCH INCOPORATED Appellants

AND

INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT Respondent

Hearing: 16 December 2016

Appearances:

S Lack on instructions from R Mansfield for R Chand
J Hunter and Z Malkawi for V Prasad
S Sharma for B Pratap, P Chand and Sabha
K Hogan and I Ko for Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland Wynyard Wood Lawyers, Auckland Sanjay Sharma, Auckland

Copy to: R Mansfield, Auckland
S Lack, Auckland
J Hunter, Auckland
Z Malkawi, Clendon
Fairfax Media

PRASAD & ORS v INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT [2016] NZHC 3112 [16 December 2016]

[1] The appellants face a number of dishonesty charges in the District Court at Manukau. In a decision delivered on 24 November 2016 Judge C S Blackie declined to continue the interim suppression of the appellants’ names.1 They appeal from that decision.

[2] The Crown has assumed responsibility for the prosecution of the case and has laid the following charges against the appellants:

(a) Rakesh Chand

(i) seven counts of theft by a person in a special relationship; (ii) one of obstructing a gambling inspector;
(iii) using a forged document; and

(iv)     four charges of dishonestly using a document; (b)       Vijendra Prasad
(i)       three charges of theft by a person in a special relationship; (c) Binesh Pratap
(i)       one charge of theft by a person in a special relationship; (d)    Pradeep Chand
(i)       two charges of theft by a person in a special relationship; and

(ii) one of obstructing a gambling inspector;

(e) Shree Sanatan Pratanidhi Dharam Sabha Manukau Branch Inc

(Sabha).

1 Department of Internal Affairs v Sabha [2016] NZDC 23503.

(i) three charges of theft by a person in a special relationship; and

(ii) four charges of using a document.

[3] A number of other parties are charged on the same prosecution notice. They were also parties to the decision declining continuation of interim suppression, namely Richard Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Anup Kumar, Mohammed Feroz Hassan, and the Mangere United Social Club Inc. No appeals have been lodged by those parties.

[4] The charges arise from allegations of the misuse of grant funding received from gambling corporate societies by four incorporated societies, including Sabha. All are associated with the Fijian Indian community.

[5] Mr Sharma who acts for Binesh Pratap, Pradeep Chand and Sabha initially proposed to withdraw the appeals by those parties as he had filed a second application with the District Court for a further interim suppression order. After a conference Mr Sharma was instructed to pursue this appeal.

[6] Although counsel thought the Judge had invited such an application I do not read the Judge’s comments that way. Further, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in Young v District Court at Hamilton, in the absence of new factual circumstances, repeated applications for suppression can amount to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chand v Internal Affairs Department and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 3112
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chand v Internal Affairs Department involves multiple appellants, including Rakesh Chand, Vijendra Prasad, Binesh Pratap, Pradeep Chand, and Shree Sanatan Pratanidhi Dharam Sabha Manukau Branch Incorporated, who face various charges of theft and other dishonesty-related offenses. These charges stem from allegations of misuse of grant funding received from gambling corporate societies by several incorporated societies associated with the Fijian Indian community. The appellants sought to continue the interim suppression of their names, which had initially been granted by the District Court. However, the District Court Judge C S Blackie declined to extend the interim suppression, leading to this appeal. The legal issues before the court centered on whether the appellants could establish the threshold requirement for name suppression under section 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and if so, whether the exercise of discretion favored suppression. The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate extreme hardship as required by the Act, as the claimed hardships were of a general nature and did not rise to the level of extreme hardship. Additionally, the court found that the public interest in open justice, especially given the nature of the alleged offenses involving community groups, heavily favored publication. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the interim suppression order was not extended.

Orders