Legal Research
Cases
EP HP AND THE KING

EP HP AND THE KING

Case [2023] NZHC 1573 23 June 2023

Jurisdiction

Standing

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Specific Performance

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: ORDER FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE PRESENT INTERIM SUPPRESSION ORDER UNTIL THE APPEAL IS FINALLY DETERMINED (SEE PARA [56] OF THIS JUDGMENT).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-004-1470

[2023] NZHC 1573

BETWEEN
EP

First Applicant

HP
Second Applicant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2023

Appearances:

S L McColgan for Applicant E T Fletcher for Respondent

Judgment:

23 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 June 2023 at 2.00 pm.

………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

EP v R [2023] NZHC 1573 [23 June 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr P faces one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one charge of participation in an organised criminal group.

[2] He applies to extend interim name suppression granted in the Manukau District Court on 2 March 2022. Mr P’s wife, Mrs P, also applies in her own right for orders forbidding publication of her name.1 Mr and Mrs P seek suppression until the start of the trial when their counsel accepts the orders would need to be reassessed. The Crown opposes the applications.

[3] The applications are based on the submission that publication of Mr P’s name would cause undue hardship or extreme hardship to Mrs P as a person connected to Mr P.2 Mrs P works at two medical centres in Auckland. At Centre A she is currently the senior registered nurse. At Centre B she is part way through an internship to gain registration as a nurse practitioner under the supervision of her employer there. As a requirement of the internship, Mrs P is receiving mentoring from the senior doctor at Centre A and has obtained his commitment of employment upon registration. The foundation for the applications is the impact of publication on Mrs P’s career and employment.

Summary of allegations against Mr P

[4] Mr P and nine co-defendants face charges arising out of Operation Weirton, which centred on the interception of a consignment of 613 kilograms of methamphetamine imported from Malaysia. In late February 2022, the police and the New Zealand Customs Service intercepted the consignment containing 27 boxes each holding 22-23 square shaped items declared as PVC edging. Each item allegedly contained approximately one kilogram of methamphetamine.

[5] The police summary of facts alleges that the consignment was collected by two of the defendants in a rental truck and transported to an address in Weymouth where

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 202(2)(a). In written submissions filed in advance of the hearing the Crown contended that there was no separate application by Mrs P. At the hearing, Mr Fletcher advised that the Crown did not pursue this point.
2 The applications are supported by an affidavit of Mrs P sworn the day before the hearing.

Mr P and another defendant, Mr Ula, were waiting. Five of the 27 boxes were then removed from the truck and transported to an address in Manurewa,…

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 EP HP AND THE KING

Details

AGLC: EP HP AND THE KING [2023] NZHC 1573
Case: [2023] NZHC 1573
Decision Date: 23 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr P and Mrs P, who had recently married, applied to extend an interim suppression order that had been granted to Mr P in respect of his criminal charges. The suppression order was due to expire at his next court appearance. The Crown opposed the applications. The suppression orders were sought on the basis that publication of Mr P's name would cause undue hardship to Mrs P, who was a person connected with Mr P. Mr P's application was based on the grounds that publication would cause extreme hardship to Mrs P, cast suspicion on her that may cause undue hardship, or lead to the identification of Mrs P, who would be suppressed by operation of an order the court would make under s 202. The court held that the applications failed because none of the threshold grounds were met. While Mrs P's concerns about the impact on her career and reputation were genuine, the court was not satisfied that there was a real and appreciable risk that they would eventuate. The court noted that Mrs P had a commitment for employment at the end of her internship and her employers had not indicated any intention to interfere with this. The court also held that Mrs P's connection with Mr P's alleged offending did not provide an objective basis to implicate her in any wrongdoing. The court declined to make orders under ss 200 or 202 forbidding publication of Mr and Mrs P’s names. However, it granted a request from Mr P’s counsel to continue the name suppression until 20 working days after the date of the judgment to allow time to take instructions on an appeal.

Orders