Legal Research
Cases
Hayward v The King

Hayward v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 3077 22 October 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

align="center">NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT/ PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
align="center">SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST IN RELATION TO ASPECTS OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011: SEE PARAGRAPH [23].
align="center">ORDER FOR INTERIM NAME SUPPRESSION OF THE APPELLANT AS SET OUT AT PARAGRAPH [25] OF THIS JUDGMENT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-532 [2024] NZHC 3077

BETWEEN JAMIE MATHEW HAYWARD
Appellant

AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing: 14 October 2024 Appearances: V I Tava for Appellant
S Wakefield for Respondent

Judgment: 22 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

[Appeal against refusal to grant name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 October 2024 at 2.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

HAYWARD v R [2024] NZHC 3077 [22 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 9 July 2024, Mr Hayward was sentenced to seven years and two months’ imprisonment on three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and 12 charges of doing an indecent act on a child under the age of 12. At the sentencing hearing, a last minute oral application was made for suppression of the appellant’s name on account of the impact of publication on a young relative, A. The Court granted an order for interim suppression to enable a formal application and supporting evidence to be filed and the application heard on an opposed basis. That hearing took place on 20 September 2024, with Judge M-E Sharp issuing her ruling declining the application on the same day but extending interim suppression until determination of an intended appeal.1

[2] This decision determines Mr Hayward’s appeal against the Judge’s refusal to grant him permanent name suppression pursuant to s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA).

Legal principles

Applications for name suppression

[3] A two-stage analysis applies in respect of applications under s 200(2) of the CPA:2

[40] At the first stage, the judge must consider whether he or she is satisfied that any of the threshold grounds listed in 200(2) has been established. That is to say, whether publication would be likely to lead to one of the outcomes listed in subs (2). The listed outcomes are prerequisites to a court having jurisdiction to suppress the name of a defendant. It is “only if” one of the threshold grounds has been established that the judge is able to go on to the second stage.

[41] At the second stage, the judge weighs the competing interests of the applicant and the public, taking into account such matters as whether the applicant has been convicted, the seriousness of the offending, the views of the victims and the…

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 Hayward v The King

Details

AGLC: Hayward v The King [2024] NZHC 3077
Case: [2024] NZHC 3077
Decision Date: 22 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Jamie Mathew Hayward appeals the District Court's refusal to grant him permanent name suppression under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA). Hayward was sentenced to seven years and two months' imprisonment for multiple charges of sexual violation and indecent acts on a child under the age of 12. The appeal centres on the District Court's decision to deny Hayward's request for name suppression, which was initially granted on an interim basis. The court had to determine whether the District Court correctly applied the legal principles governing name suppression applications and whether it erred in its analysis of the relevant factors.

The court identified two main legal issues to be resolved. Firstly, whether the District Court correctly assessed the threshold for "extreme hardship" as required by section 200(2)(a) of the CPA. Secondly, if the threshold was met, whether the District Court appropriately weighed the competing interests of Hayward and the public, including the seriousness of the offence and the public interest in open justice and deterrence. The court also considered whether the automatic suppression under section 204(1)(b) of the CPA, which applied to a young relative of Hayward who was a witness, affected the second stage of the analysis.

The court found that the District Court correctly applied the legal principles in its decision. The court emphasised that the threshold for "extreme hardship" is high and requires more than the usual distress and embarrassment associated with criminal proceedings. The court also concluded that the District Court appropriately balanced the competing interests, taking into account the seriousness of Hayward's offences, the public interest in open justice, and the views of the victims. The court held that the automatic suppression under section 204(1)(b) did not override the broader public interest in open reporting in this case. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the District Court's decision to deny permanent name suppression. Pending any further appeal, the court extended the interim name suppression order for the next 20 working days.

Orders