Lynch v Police - [2023] NZHC 1166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-43

[2023] NZHC 1166

BETWEEN
FRANCESCA BARBARA ELISE LYNCH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 27 April 2023

Appearances:

A M S Williams for the Appellant G E R Alloway for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] By application dated 3 March 2023, the appellant, Francesca Lynch, applied for an order suppressing her name and the details of her sentencing, which took place almost a year before, on 31 March 2022. The application was prompted by an approach to her by a reporter from the New Zealand Herald who wishes to print an article about it.

[2] The application came before a Judge D G Harvey in the District Court, who considered himself to be functus officio, namely, without jurisdiction to make the order sought.

[3] Ms Lynch has appealed that decision to this Court. For Ms Lynch, it is submitted that the appeal should be allowed and remitted back to the District Court for it to be argued. The respondent submits that the District Court was correct to

LYNCH v POLICE [2023] NZHC 1166 [16 May 2023]

decline the application but that the appellant is not without a remedy because she can apply to this Court for a similar order.

[4] Responsibly, the New Zealand Herald has agreed not to publish anything about the appellant’s criminal proceedings until the suppression issue she now raises has been dealt with by a court.

Background

[5] Originally, in the District Court, the appellant faced two charges of causing harm by posting digital communications.1 She pleaded guilty to the charges and was convicted and discharged in respect of them by a District Court Judge on 31 March 2022. The only important aspects of the summary of facts that need to be mentioned in this judgment are that the offending was against people who worked with her in the social work department at the Christchurch Hospital.

[6] When the appellant appeared for sentencing in the District Court, she did not apply for the suppression of her name. No members of the media were present, therefore her conviction and sentence were not reported.

[7] However, because of her role as a social worker, a disciplinary process was also instigated against the appellant by the Social Workers’ Registration Board (the Board). After her conviction in the District Court, the Board removed her registration, as a result of which she could no longer work as a social worker.

[8] The media subsequently printed articles about the appellant. These articles were based on the findings of the Board and were published in both the New Zealand Herald and the Otago Daily Times on 19 November 2022.

[9] On 3 March 2023, the appellant received a message from a New Zealand Herald reporter enquiring about her conviction and discharge, and indicating that an article about the criminal proceedings was in train. This enquiry precipitated 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 Lynch v Police

Details

AGLC: Lynch v Police [2023] NZHC 1166
Case: [2023] NZHC 1166
Decision Date: 16 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Francesca Lynch appealed to the High Court against a decision of the District Court which declined to grant her application to suppress her name and the details of her sentencing. The appeal was heard by Harland J on 27 April 2023, and the written reasons for the judgment were delivered on 16 May 2023. Lynch sought suppression after a reporter from the New Zealand Herald had indicated that they intended to publish an article about her sentencing. The District Court considered itself functus officio and without jurisdiction to make the order. The High Court found that the District Court was not functus officio and that it had jurisdiction to determine the application. The appeal was allowed and the application was remitted back to the District Court for determination.

The legal issues in the case were whether the District Court was functus officio and without jurisdiction to determine Lynch’s application for suppression, and if the High Court should make the order itself. The court considered whether the District Court’s decision to decline to hear the application was correct, and if not, whether the High Court should grant the order. The court concluded that the District Court was not functus officio and that it had jurisdiction to determine the application. The court also found that it was not necessary to make the order itself and that the application should be remitted back to the District Court for determination.

The court held that the District Court was not functus officio and that it had jurisdiction to determine the application for suppression. The court reasoned that the principle of functus officio applied only when there was a final decision on the merits of the case, and that the sentencing in Lynch’s case was not a final decision on the merits. The court also noted that the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 permitted the District Court to make an order in respect of a person who is charged with, convicted or acquitted of an offence, and that the reference to acquittal indicated that the court could still determine the application for suppression. The court held that the District Court was not prevented from dealing with the application and that it had jurisdiction to determine it.

The appeal was allowed and the application was remitted back to the District Court for determination. The High Court found that the District Court was not functus officio and that it had jurisdiction to determine Lynch’s application for suppression. The court held that the District Court could still determine the application for suppression, even though the sentencing had occurred some time ago, and that the length of time was relevant to the assessment as to whether an order should be made but not to whether the District Court had jurisdiction. The court also held that it was not necessary to make the order itself and that the application should be remitted back to the District Court for determination.

Orders