Evans v The King - [2024] NZCA 647

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA654/2024
[2024] NZCA 647

BETWEEN	CERI LEE EVANS Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	12 November 2024
Court:	Collins, Dunningham and Powell JJ
Counsel:	I G Hunt for Appellant T R Simpson for Respondent
Judgment:	10 December 2024 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
B The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

Introduction

In 1984, Dr Ceri Evans was convicted in the Ashburton District Court on a charge of careless driving.[1] He was fined and ordered to attend a defensive driving course which he completed in Dunedin where he was, at the time, studying medicine.
[1]Transport Act 1962, s 60.
In 2023, Dr Evans sought leave to appeal his conviction out of time. His objective was to be discharged without conviction because of the embarrassment and inconvenience caused to him by the conviction when he travels overseas for his work commitments. He also applied to have his name and identifying details suppressed under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA), and the evidence and submissions related to the appeal suppressed under s 205 of that Act.
The applications for leave to appeal out of time and for name suppression were declined by Harland J on 12 August 2024.[2] Dr Evans now appeals the refusal to grant him name suppression.

Extension of time

[2]Evans v Police [2024] NZHC 2249 [High Court judgment].

Counsel for Dr Evans attempted to file a notice of appeal against both decisions of Harland J on 9 September 2024. The conviction appeal was rejected for filing by the Registry for want of jurisdiction. The Registrar indicated however that Dr Evans had a right of appeal against the suppression decision contained in s 284 of the CPA. The Registrar asked counsel to complete the suppression appeal form if Dr Evans wished to proceed with that appeal, and the notice of appeal against the suppression decision was accepted for filing on 3 October 2024.
The fresh notice of appeal was out of time pursuant to s 285(2) of the CPA. We treat the notice as if it contains an application for an extension of time per r 8.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 and, given the delay is short, there is no opposition from nor prejudice to the respondent, and the applicant attempted to file within time, we grant an extension accordingly.

Background

With the passage of time, it is difficult to completely reconstruct what was in issue and how the careless driving charge was resolved. The court records that have been located show that after Dr Evans was charged, he appeared in the Ashburton District Court on 16 July 1984. The proceeding was adjourned to 30 July when a not guilty plea was entered, and a hearing allocated for 10 September. On the day of the hearing, Dr Evans was convicted, fined $75, ordered…

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 Evans v The King

Details

AGLC: Evans v The King [2024] NZCA 647
Case: [2024] NZCA 647
Decision Date: 10 December 2024 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Evans v The King involved Dr. Ceri Evans appealing a High Court decision that refused his application for name suppression under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) in relation to a 1984 conviction for careless driving. The Court of Appeal, comprised of Collins, Dunningham, and Powell JJ, heard the case on 12 November 2024 and delivered judgment on 10 December 2024. Dr. Evans sought to suppress his name and details related to the conviction to avoid embarrassment and inconvenience while travelling overseas for his work. The appeal hinged on whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the name suppression appeal under the CPA and if the threshold criteria in s 200(2)(g) of the CPA were met. The Crown argued that the appeal should be governed by the law in force at the time of the offence, namely the Criminal Justice Act 1954.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was governed by the CPA, not the Criminal Justice Act 1954. It determined that the threshold criteria in s 200(2)(g) of the CPA were not met as the Clean Slate Act did not confer suppression upon Dr. Evans. Additionally, the Court concluded that even if the threshold criteria were met, the consequences of allowing publication of Dr. Evans' name were not severe enough to warrant suppression. The Court also noted that suppression would undermine the principle of open justice, which is fundamental to the New Zealand legal system.

The Court granted the application for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal and dismissed the appeal. This outcome underscores the importance of open justice and the threshold criteria required for name suppression under the CPA.

Orders