K v Police HC Invercargill CRI 2007-425-27

[2007] NZHC 867

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI 2007-425-000027

K

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondents

Hearing:         4 September 2007

Counsel:         H T Young for Appellant (by video link)

M J Thomas for Respondents  (by video link)

R Stewart for Fairfax New Zealand Limited (by video link) Judgment:         6 September 2007

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

Introduction

[1]      This is an appeal against a refusal by Judge Flatley to grant an interim order prohibiting publication of the appellant’s name, a judgment made on 17 August

2007.

[2]      The appellant had appeared in the Invercargill District Court on a charge of failing to comply with the duty of a parent to provide necessaries for a child, such

K V POLICE  HC INV CRI 2007-425-000027  6 September 2007

neglect  endangering  the  child’s  life.    The  appellant  is  also  likely  to  face  an alternative charge of neglect.

[3]      The facts that the police rely on are that the appellant, an 18 year old girl, took her six week old son out on an extremely cold winter’s evening dressed only in light clothing.   Fortunately they were met in Queen’s Park by the sister of the appellant’s male partner who took the child home, changed him into warmer clothes, fed him and put him to bed with an adult and an electric blanket in an attempt to warm him and monitor him throughout the night.

[4]      Before  the  District  Court  Judge  the  principal  argument  in  support  of suppression of name was the mental  condition  of  the  appellant  and  the  risk  of suicide.   Mr Young, a counsel experienced in mental health matters, responsibly does not advance that as the ground of appeal, given the most recent reports he has had from the mental health clinicians.

[5]      Rather, Mr Young argues that interim suppression should continue (it having been allowed pending an appeal) as publication of her name would likely be highly prejudicial to her chances of obtaining a fair trial.  The reason here is that she has a conviction for use of drug utensils.  At the time of that criminal proceeding, about a year ago, she was refused bail by the District Court Judge who was concerned that she was eight months pregnant and a significant drug user.  Publicity associated with refusal of bail made a front page story on the Southland Times.

[6]      Mr Young argues that if her name were now to be published in relation to this charge it is quite possible that prospective jurors would draw a link between the two cases and conclude that the young lady who was an intravenous drug user, was pregnant and  was  refused  bail,  is  the same  young lady charged  with  failing to provide the necessaries of life to her baby.

[7]      I accept that this is a real possibility in the community of Invercargill.  That, however, is a matter which may well warrant the transfer of the trial of this current charge or charges to Dunedin or Christchurch.

[8]      It is not possible for the media when reporting this charge and her name to make the connection with her prior criminal history including the refusal of bail.  To do so would be in contempt of Court.

[9]      The public discharge of justice is more important than the place where a trial is to be conducted.

[10]     Mr Young submitted that the name suppression should continue at least until he had an opportunity to consider whether to make an application for a transfer of venue and the hearing of such an application.  I disagree.    The appeal is dismissed. The interim order for suppression is removed.

Solicitors:

H Young, Invercargill, for Appellant

Preston Russell Law, Invercargill, for Respondents

Izard Weston, Wellington, for Fairfax New Zealand Limited