F v Police - [2023] NZHC 3622

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-463-000024

[2023] NZHC 3622

BETWEEN
F

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 November 2023

Appearances:

N Franklin for the Appellant T Taana for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

[on appeal against refusal to grant permanent name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 December 2023 at 1.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
N Franklin, Barrister, Whakatāne Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

F v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3622 [12 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] F pleaded guilty to exposing a young person to indecent material. He was sentenced in December 2022 to six months’ community detention, 200 hours community work, and reparation of $3,000. He sought permanent name suppression. In February 2023, the District Court Judge declined F’s application for permanent name suppression.1

[2] F now appeals that decision. He says publication would cause extreme hardship to his partner, X and endanger her safety.2 F argues that the Judge erred by:

(a)taking into consideration there was no suggestion of a mental health relapse on the part of X;

(b)failing to consider that the publication would endanger X’s safety;

(c)concluding there was no extreme hardship caused to X; and

(d)finding that the public interest outweighed the impact of publication.

[3] The Police oppose the appeal. While acknowledging X’s diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder (PDD) and its impact on her, the respondent submits it is not likely she would relapse and experience depressive symptoms to the extent that extreme hardship would be suffered. In addition, the respondent argues that the Judge’s assessment of the second stage was correct, and there is public interest in enabling the community to make an informed decision whether to allow their children to associate with F.

Decision on appeal

[4] The Judge set out the legal test under s 200(2)(a) relating to extreme hardship. He considered the material found in the report of a Dr A and the affidavits of X, who is profoundly deaf. She attended a boarding school and suffered bullying as well as

1 R v [F] [2023] NZDC 1245.
2 X did not seek name suppression for herself. However, publication of her name in light of her relationship to F would breach the order suppressing F’s name. Additionally, this judgment contains sensitive details. Accordingly, her name has been anonymised in this judgment.

physical violence from teachers. The Judge recorded X’s “significant genetic predisposition for anxiety, depression, ADHD and autism”. He noted X had suffered anxiety and depression symptoms when F was charged. Dr A’s diagnosis was of PDD which was described as a “chronic and enduring type of depression”.

[5] The Judge emphasised that in Dr A’s opinion X’s PDD symptoms were in “full remission”. He noted Dr…

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 F v Police 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: [2023] NZHC 3622
Decision Date: 12 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

F pleaded guilty to exposing a young person to indecent material and was sentenced to six months’ community detention, 200 hours of community work, and reparation of $3,000. F sought permanent name suppression, which the District Court Judge declined. F appeals that decision, arguing that publication would cause extreme hardship to his partner, X, and endanger her safety. The Police oppose the appeal, arguing that there is no real and appreciable risk of a relapse in X’s mental health and that the public interest in knowing F’s identity outweighs the impact of publication.

The High Court considered whether publication of F’s name is likely to cause extreme hardship to X or endanger her safety, and whether permanent name suppression should be ordered. The Court found that there is a real and appreciable risk that publication would cause X extreme hardship, as it would likely lead to her losing the support of her community, exposing her to possible targeting and rejection, and triggering memories of her childhood abuse and trauma. The Court also found that there is a real risk of psychological harm which will be exacerbated by publication, and a real risk of self-harming behaviours. The Court considered the risk to X’s mental health, the difficulties in accessing supportive services, and the fact that the victim’s parents and family already know F’s identity. The Court concluded that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and suppress F’s name to protect X’s safety.

The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is entitled to permanent name suppression.

Orders