Jaz v The King - [2023] NZHC 1227

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-64 CRI-2023-409-65

[2023] NZHC 1227

BETWEEN
ROBERTO JAZ

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

CRI-2023-409-66

BETWEEN

DANNY JAZ
Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

Further memoranda: Teleconference:

16 May 2023

23 May 2023
24 May 2023

Appearances:

T Aickin and M Smit for Roberto Jaz D J Matthews for Danny Jaz

A R McRae for Crown
E D Nilsson for Interested Party (Stuff Ltd)
A Harding for Interested Party (NZME) – written submissions

Judgment:

25 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 May 2023 at 9.30 am
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

JAZ v R [2023] NZHC 1227 [25 May 2023]

[1] Mr Roberto Jaz and Mr Danny Jaz were convicted following a Judge alone trial on a raft of charges involving extensive stupefying, sexual, drug, and violence offending. Interim orders suppressing the names of the appellants were revoked by Judge Mabey KC on 26 April 2023. Both appeal that decision.

Background

[2] Police launched Operation Sinatra after complaints were made in July 2018 by two women alleging that they had been drugged and sexually assaulted. On the night of that offending, the two women had gone to Mama Hooch bar, which Danny Jaz managed, to celebrate a birthday. Subsequently, many further instances of offending connected to Mama Hooch and the restaurant, Venuti, where Roberto Jaz was a chef, were discovered which involved a similar pattern of drugging young women, the majority of whom were aged between 18 and 24 years.

[3] Operation Sinatra uncovered that, between 2015 and 2018, the two Jaz brothers had offended against a substantial number of victims. Both men were involved in hospitality businesses proximate to each other (Mama Hooch and Venuti). They would use their positions to administer, or facilitate the administration of, stupefying substances mixed with alcoholic drinks. This appears to have been to encourage a “party atmosphere” at the Mama Hooch establishment and to lower the resistance of targeted young women to sexual advances by them. Both Roberto Jaz and Danny Jaz repeatedly committed sexual assaults to varying degrees of severity.

[4] The men discussed their offending with others in a WhatsApp group chat and would share visual material there.

[5] At the commencement of the trial, Danny Jaz pleaded guilty to numerous charges of sexual violation, including one charge of sexual violation by rape, and of indecent assault. Following a nine-week trial, Judge Mabey found Danny Jaz guilty in respect of charges of stupefying and of disabling, one charge of attempted stupefying and two charges of offering to supply a Class B controlled drug. Roberto Jaz was found guilty of several charges relating to stupefying, attempted stupefying, sexual violation including one charge of sexual violation by rape, indecent assault,…

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 Jaz v The King

Details

AGLC: Jaz v The King [2023] NZHC 1227
Case: [2023] NZHC 1227
Decision Date: 25 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals by Roberto and Danny Jaz against the revocation of interim name suppression orders were heard by Eaton J in the Christchurch High Court. The appellants, who were convicted of a series of serious sexual offences, argued that the lifting of the suppression orders would cause their mother extreme hardship and prejudice a fair trial for Danny Jaz. The Crown, media representatives, and victims opposed the continuation of the suppression orders.

The court assessed whether the suppression orders should be reinstated based on the threshold criteria of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the principle of open justice. The court found that Roberto Jaz's mother's evidence of severe anxiety, worsening diabetes, and financial hardship due to the closure of their family restaurant did not meet the high threshold of extreme hardship. The court concluded that the distress from publication was an ordinary consequence of the appellants' convictions and not a sufficient ground for suppression. Additionally, the public interest in open justice and the victims' opposition to suppression weighed against reinstating the orders.

Regarding Danny Jaz's appeal, the withdrawal of the outstanding charge rendered the argument of prejudice to a fair trial moot. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, and the interim suppression orders were not reinstated. The publication of the judgment was embargoed until 1:00 pm on Thursday, 25 May 2023, to allow the victims to learn of the outcome from their advisers or the police rather than through the media.

Orders