G (SC 130/2024) AND THE KING

[2025] NZSC 80

INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE APPELLANT’S NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, AND OTHER PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPELLANT CONTAINED IN THE SUBMISSIONS (BEYOND INFORMATION ABOUT HIS CURRENT AGE, AND HIS AGE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENDING) UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 130/2024
 [2025] NZSC 80

BETWEEN	G (SC 130/2024) Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	R M Gould, L C Ord and E T Blincoe for Appellant J M Pridgeon and W J Harvey for Respondent
Judgment:	11 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AWe make an interim order prohibiting publication of the appellant’s name, address, occupation and identifying particulars, and other private information about the appellant contained in the submissions (beyond information about his current age, and his age at the time of the offending) until further order of the Court.

BNZME Publishing Ltd is granted access to counsel’s submissions, on the condition that it complies with statutory suppression of the victims’ names and with the above suppression order.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. NZME Publishing Ltd (NZME) applies for access to submissions filed in this appeal.  A complicating factor for this application is that the appellant has applied for name suppression and for anonymisation of judgments issued on this appeal.  There are also issues raised by counsel as to whether suppression of the appellant’s name is necessary to support existing statutory name suppression for a victim.  There are further issues as to whether private information about the appellant referred to in evidence and in submissions should be subject to suppression orders. 

2. As to the application for access, the appellant does not oppose access to submissions by NZME if the application for name suppression is granted before the hearing.  The respondent abides the Court’s decision regarding access, provided that any anonymisation decision is followed. 

3. There are open justice considerations that support the grant of access to NZME.  Although NZME will be able to attend and report on the hearing whether or not it gains access to the written submissions, earlier access to submissions may facilitate its ability to follow and report on the issues and argument. 

4. We consider that the appropriate path forward pending hearing of the substantive appeal, and of the application for name suppression and anonymisation, is to grant interim suppression of the appellant’s name, address, occupation and identifying particulars, and other private information about the appellant contained in the submissions (beyond information about his current age, and his age at the time of the offending) until further order of the Court.  This will preserve the position pending

hearing of the outstanding applications whilst enabling access by media. We grant NZME’s application on that basis.

Solicitors:
Ord Legal, Wellington for Appellant
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Copy to:  
Catherine Hutton, NZME Publishing Ltd, Wellington