Hayward v Police - [2019] NZHC 847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-89

[2019] NZHC 847

BETWEEN
JAMIE MATHEW HAYWARD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2019

Appearances:

D Schellenberg for the Appellant J C Bull for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 April 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

Solicitors:
Mr DHP Schellenberg, Barrister, Auckland (daniel@crimelawyer.co.nz) Ms J C Bull, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

JAMIE MATHEW HAYWARD v POLICE [2019] NZHC 847 [16 April 2019]

[1] The appellant, along with his brother, is charged with the theft of a rather valuable gnome, worth approximately $55,000. The gnome was stolen from an Auckland art gallery. The theft attracted considerable media attention.

[2] The appellant and his brother applied for interim name suppression in the District Court under s 200(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The grounds of suppression were that publication would cause extreme hardship to the appellant’s daughter – because she would be bullied at school as she shares his name – and because publication would affect their fair trial rights. Judge C M Ryan, who heard the application, declined to grant name suppression, finding there was no arguable case for either ground.1

Alleged facts

[3] The Police allege that the appellant and his brother were outside the Gow and Langsford Art Gallery in Auckland Central around 12:30 am on Christmas day last year. They are alleged to have waited in the area for approximately an hour, before approaching the gnome and breaking it free from its concrete plinth. They then took it away in their car.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Ryan found there was no arguable case in respect of either extreme hardship or a risk to fair trial rights.

[5] In relation to the risk of extreme hardship to the appellant’s daughter, the Judge considered that it was not arguable in this case, for the following reasons:

(a)The appellant’s name is a common one.

(b)Most schools have anti-bullying policies and in situations like this are very protective.

1 R v H and H DC Auckland CRI-2019-004-746, 20 February 2019.

(c)There is no evidence that the school the child attends is one where teasing and bullying is so rife that there is a real risk she may be bullied.

(d)There is no evidence that she is more prone to being upset by school- yard remarks than any other child.

[6] In terms of the risk of prejudice to the appellant’s trial rights, the Judge held there was no arguable case, for the following reasons:

(a)There is a presumption of open justice.

(b)Publicity of a defendant’s name, even in serious cases, is a common occurrence. There must be more than an assertation of a risk to fair trial rights.

(c)Juries are often empanelled in high profile cases, and any publicity is dealt with by jury directions.

Approach on appeal

[7]A decision on name suppression involves a two-stage analysis.2

[8] First, the Judge must be satisfied that…

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 Hayward 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: [2019] NZHC 847
Decision Date: 16 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hayward v Police involved an appeal by Jamie Mathew Hayward against a District Court decision that denied his application for interim name suppression. Hayward, along with his brother, was charged with the theft of a valuable gnome from an Auckland art gallery, a crime that garnered significant media attention. Hayward and his brother sought interim name suppression under section 200(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the grounds that publication would cause extreme hardship to Hayward's daughter due to potential bullying at school and that it would affect their fair trial rights. The District Court, presided over by Judge C M Ryan, rejected the application, concluding that there was no arguable case for either extreme hardship or a risk to fair trial rights.

The High Court was tasked with determining whether the District Court's decision to deny the interim name suppression was correct. The legal issues included whether there was an arguable case for extreme hardship or a risk to fair trial rights and, if so, whether the District Court correctly exercised its discretion in denying the suppression order. The Court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents concerning the threshold for extreme hardship and the balance between the interests of the applicant and the public, including the principle of open justice.

The High Court, presided over by Gault J, found that the District Court's decision was correct. The Court held that there was no arguable case for extreme hardship as there was no evidence that Hayward's daughter would suffer particularly egregious bullying or was particularly susceptible to it. The Court also noted that the principle of open justice is a strong one and not easily displaced. Although Hayward was entitled to the presumption of innocence, this alone was not a sufficient reason to grant suppression. The Court concluded that even if there were an arguable case, the competing interests of the applicant and the public, including the principle of open justice, did not necessitate an interim name suppression order. The appeal was dismissed.

The final order was that the appeal against the District Court's decision was dismissed.

Orders