Jeffries v Police

Case [2014] NZHC 2379


ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT'S HOME PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

INTERIM ORDER CONTINUING TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S NAME UNTIL 4.00 PM ON 2 OCTOBER 2014 OR UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI- 2014-485-000076 [2014] NZHC 2379

BETWEEN

KEITH IAN JEFFERIES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE First Respondent

FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Respondent

Hearing: 30 September 2014

Counsel:

C J Tennet for Appellant
J M O'Sullivan for First Respondent
A M Stevens for Second Respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J [Name Suppression]

Introduction

[1]      I am dismissing Mr Jefferies’ appeal from a decision of the District Court in

which Judge Cameron refused to grant orders suppressing Mr Jefferies name.1

[2]      I  am  confirming  Judge  Cameron’s  decision  because  in  my  assessment

Judge Cameron was correct in all material respects.   Specifically, Judge Cameron

1      R v Jefferies DC Wellington CRI-2014-085-8995, 22 September 2014.

JEFFERIES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2379 [30 September 2014]

applied the correct principles, only took into account relevant matters, did not overlook any relevant matters and was plainly correct.2

[3]      I am, however, making an order suppressing publication of the street address of Mr Jefferies’ home.

Background

[4]      Mr Jefferies is a Wellington lawyer, who practises primarily as a criminal trial lawyer in partnership with Mr Raizis under the name “Jefferies & Raizis”.   Their partnership was established in 1990.

[5]      On 30 July 2014 Mr Jefferies was charged with four offences under the

Misuse of Drugs Act 1975:

(1)       possession of a Class A controlled drug (LSD);3

(2)       possession of a Class A controlled drug (methamphetamine);4

(3)       possession of a Class B controlled drug (ecstasy);5 and

(4)       possession of tools used for smoking methamphetamine.6

[6]      Mr Jefferies was arrested following the termination of a police operation in which Mr Jefferies’ home, car and business premises were searched.   During the search of those premises the police say they located, amongst other matters, the

following items:

2      B (CA860/10) v R [2011] NZCA 331 at [9]; Lawrence v R [2011] NZCA 272 at [11]; and Rowley v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] NZCA 160, [2011] NZSC 6 at [5].

3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a).  Maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment,

$1,000 fine.

4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a).  Maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment,

$1,000 fine.

5      Misuse  of  Drugs  Act  1975,  s  7(1)(a)  and  (2)(b).    Maximum  penalty  is  three  months’

imprisonment, $500 fine.

6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3).   Maximum penalty is one year imprisonment,

$500 fine.

(1)      In Mr Jefferies’ home in a bedroom:

a plastic snaplock bag containing rolled pieces of tinfoil with tabs of LSD;

a snaplock bag with 0.25 grams of methamphetamine;

an empty “joint bag”;

five ecstasy tablets; and

a methamphetamine pipe.

(2)       In Mr Jefferies’ car:

a methamphetamine pipe.

(3)       In…

Continue reading Jeffries v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jeffries v Police [2014] NZHC 2379
Case
[2014] NZHC 2379
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Jeffries v Police involves an appeal by Keith Ian Jeffries, a Wellington lawyer, against the District Court's refusal to grant name suppression orders. Jeffries was charged with drug offenses, including possession of Class A and Class B controlled substances. The primary legal issue was whether Jeffries had demonstrated sufficient grounds under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for suppressing his name, address, and occupation. The court assessed his arguments under various subsections of the Act, including those relating to extreme hardship, casting suspicion on others, prejudice to a fair trial, and the maintenance of the law.

The court found that Jeffries had not established extreme hardship, as the possibility of losing clients and suffering financial harm did not meet the high threshold required by the Act. Additionally, the court did not find that Jeffries' name suppression would prevent undue hardship for his law partner, Raizis, or that it was necessary to avoid prejudice to a fair trial, given that Jeffries would be tried by a judge. The court also noted that suppressing Jeffries' name would unfairly single out lawyers from other defendants. However, the court agreed to suppress the street address of Jeffries' home to avoid unnecessary intrusion into his private life.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and Jeffries' name suppression was denied, but his home address details were suppressed. The court also granted an interim order to continue suppressing Jeffries' name until 4:00 PM on October 2, 2014, to allow time for potential further appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.