M v Police HC Rotorua CRI 2006-463-73

[2006] NZHC 1112

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2006-463-73

M

Appellant

v

THE POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         25 September 2006

Appearances: Mr Schulze for appellant

Ms Bayley for respondent

Judgment:      25 September 2006

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

Lance & Lawson, Rotorua

M V THE POLICE HC ROT CRI 2006-463-73  25 September 2006

[1]      This  is  an  appeal  against  the  decision  of  Judge  Weir  declining  name suppression in respect of the appellant.   Mr McCain faces charges in relation to events alleged to have occurred in July 2006.   He is charged with one count of assault with intent to commit sexual violation and one count of burglary.  There is a name suppression order in place in respect of the complainant.  Before Judge Weir, the only ground advanced in support of name suppression was that publication of the accused’s name might tend to identify the complainant in respect of whom the name suppression order was in place.  Judge Weir declined the order and also refused to suspend the order pending an appeal.

[2]      The matter was called before Keane J on 26 July 2006.   He granted the interim order suppressing Mr McCain’s name pending the disposition of this appeal. Mr Schulze indicated at that hearing that the grounds on which name suppression was sought might widen because Mr McCain was believed to be mentally unwell and that might in itself justify name suppression.

[3]      This morning Mr Schulze has confirmed that there are no substantial grounds upon which the application for name suppression can be made, other than the earlier expressed concern that identification of the name of  the accused  might  tend  to identify the complainant.   He confirms that there has been a s 38 report received from Health Waikato and the author of the report expresses the opinion that Mr McCain is sane and fit to stand trial.  In those circumstances no medical grounds are advanced in support of the name suppression order.  Mr Schulze identifies no error in the decision of Judge Weir refusing name suppression.

[4]      Ms Bailey for the Crown confirms that there is no concern that publication of Mr McCain’s name will tend to identify the complainant because there are name suppression orders in place in respect of her and that would include the publication of any details which would tend to identify her.

[5]      The starting point in relation to name suppression is the importance of open judicial proceedings.   (R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538). Although s 140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 creates jurisdiction to order suppression of names, in this

case no grounds are made out.  In the absence of any grounds for name suppression being  advanced  and  any  error  on  the  part  of  Judge  Weir  in  refusing  name suppression the appeal against refusal of name suppression is dismissed.  The interim name suppression is at an end.

Winkelmann J