Jr v Police - [2012] NZHC 3091

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS, OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF APPELLANT PROHIBITED BY S
200(4) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEUDRE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-485-000093 [2012] NZHC 3091

BETWEEN JR Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 20 November 2012

Counsel: G R Fulton for Appellant
A J Ewing for Respondent

Judgment: 20 November 2012

Reasons: 20 November 2012

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery date of 3.00 pm on the 20th day of November 2012.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr R faces two aggravated burglary charges. One charge relates to events said to have occurred on 24 August 2012. The second charge relates to events that
are alleged to have occurred on 23 October 2012.[1]

JR V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2012-485-000093 [20 November 2012]

[1] Mr R also faces one charge of failing to answer bail and one charge of being found in an enclosed yard. There is a suggestion that Mr R is facing yet another charge. However, the exact status of that charge was not able to be determined before the hearing of this appeal.

[2] In a decision dated 29 October 2012[2] Judge Moss granted Mr R name suppression in relation to the 23 October 2012 aggravated burglary charge, but declined to grant name suppression in relation to the 24 August 2012 aggravated burglary charge.

[2] New Zealand Police v R DC Lower Hutt CRI-2012-032-2616, 29 October 2011.

[3] Mr R appeals the latter decision on the grounds that the Judge’s reasoning was erroneous and because a failure to grant him name suppression in relation to both sets of charges creates a real risk of prejudice to his right to a fair trial.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Moss:

(1)accepted there were similarities between the alleged aggravated burglary charges.

(2)granted interim name suppression under s 200(2)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) in relation to the 23 October 2012 aggravated burglary charge. Her Honour accepted that if she did not suppress Mr R’s name in relation to that charge there was a risk of compromising his right to a fair trial in relation to the 24 August 2012 charge.

(3) declined to grant Mr R interim name suppression in relation to the

24 August 2012 aggravated burglary charge (and the charges of failing to answer bail and being in an enclosed yard). Her Honour reasoned that, as Mr R had already appeared in Court on those charges, she could not be satisfied there was a risk of prejudice to Mr R’s right to a fair trial in relation to the 23 October 2012 aggravated burglary trial if she declined to grant him name suppression in relation to the 24 August 2012 aggravated burglary
trial.

Grounds of appeal

[5] Mr Fulton, who has recently been appointed to represent Mr R, respectfully

submitted that Judge Moss’ reasoning was flawed. He points out:

(1) Mr R…

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 Jr 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: [2012] NZHC 3091
Decision Date: 20 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of JR v Police, JR appealed against a decision of the District Court not to grant him name suppression in relation to an aggravated burglary charge stemming from events on 24 August 2012. JR had already been granted name suppression for a second aggravated burglary charge from events on 23 October 2012. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, on 20 November 2012. The key legal issue was whether the District Court erred in its reasoning when deciding not to grant JR name suppression for the 24 August 2012 charge. The Court found that the District Court had indeed erred, as it failed to appreciate that separate trials for the two sets of charges could create a real risk of prejudice to JR’s right to a fair trial.

The Court considered the principles of name suppression and the presumption of openness, as well as the thresholds set out in sections 200(4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court concluded that, in the absence of joinder of the two trials, there was no reason for differentiating between the two trials when considering whether to grant name suppression. Given the potential for prejudice, the Court found that JR had advanced an arguable case for name suppression in relation to the 24 August 2012 charge. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and JR was granted interim name suppression for the 24 August 2012 charge and the related charges of failing to answer bail and being found in an enclosed yard. The interim orders would remain in place until any application to join the trials was determined.

Orders