Legal Research
Cases
M (SC 13/2023) v R

M (SC 13/2023) v R

Link copied

Case Copied 23 April 2024 54 min read

Contents

On this page

INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF LF’S NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS UNTIL 5.00 PM 14 JUNE 2024 OR ON EARLIER ORDER OF THE COURT QUASHING OR VARYING THIS ORDER.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE MEDIA RELEASE; OF THE MINUTES; AND OF THE JUDGMENT OR ANY INFORMATION THEREIN UNTIL THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AT 4.00 PM ON 23 APRIL 2024.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF ANY REFERENCE TO MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES BEYOND THOSE MADE IN THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

ORDER REDACTING PART OF THE EXCERPT SET OUT AT [74] FROM THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

ORDER PROHIBITING SEARCH OF THE FILES FOR THESE APPEALS WITHOUT THE LEAVE OF A JUDGE OF THIS COURT.

NOTE: COURT OF APPEAL ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF M PURSUANT TO S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 REMAINS IN FORCE. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH VICTIMS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH VICTIMS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 13/2023
[2024] NZSC 29

BETWEEN	M (SC 13/2023) Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

SC 14/2023
BETWEEN	LF (SC 14/2023) Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing: Further Submissions:	19 October 2023 20 February 2024
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	E P Priest, S A Mandeno and P D Wilks for Appellants Z R Johnston and H G Clark for Respondent T C Goatley and K M Wilson for NZME Publishing Ltd as Interested Party
Judgment:	23 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application by the appellant LF to adduce evidence updating the position in terms of social media and other coverage relating to LF’s case is granted.

B M’s appeal is dismissed.
C LF’s appeal is dismissed.
DOrder prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars until 5.00 pm on 14 June 2024 or on earlier order of the Court quashing or varying this order.

EOrder prohibiting publication of the media release; of the minutes; and of this judgment or any information therein until the judgment is delivered at 4.00 pm on 23 April 2024.
FOrder prohibiting publication of any reference to mental health issues beyond those made in the judgment which is made publicly available.
GOrder redacting part of the excerpt set out at [74] of the judgment which is made publicly available.
HOrder made that the files for these appeals are not to be searched without the leave of a Judge of this Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction	[1]
Background	[8]
The offending and LF’s circumstances	[9]
The statutory framework	[16]
Decisions in the Courts below on name suppression — LF	[22]
The District…

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 M (SC 13/2023) v R 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: [2024] NZSC 29
Decision Date: 23 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the interaction of youth justice principles with the principle of open justice in decisions about name suppression under sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Supreme Court considered the appeals of LF and M, both of whom were seeking name suppression orders. LF, who was convicted of multiple sexual offences when he was a youth, appealed the High Court's decision to decline his application for permanent name suppression. M, a connected person, appealed the High Court's refusal to suppress LF's name on the basis that publication would cause M undue hardship. The Court of Appeal allowed M's appeal and ordered permanent suppression of M's name, but declined to suppress LF's name. LF and M subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court addressed the appeals in two parts. First, it considered whether the threshold of extreme hardship was met in LF's case. The Court found that the High Court was correct to conclude that the threshold had not been met. The Court then turned to whether a permanent suppression order should be made in respect of LF's name. On balance, the Court found that the serious nature of the offending, the public interest in publication and the views of the victims outweighed the interests of LF. The Court then dismissed M's appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal was correct not to suppress LF's name.

The Court allowed LF's application to adduce fresh evidence relating to social media and other coverage of his case. It also made several orders to protect privacy interests and provide for the deferral of publication. The Court emphasised the importance of responsible commentary on the case. Finally, it granted interim suppression of LF's identity until 5.00 pm on 14 June 2024.

Orders