Moors v Police - [2017] NZHC 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-000127 [2017] NZHC 1067

BETWEEN
URSHULA JACINTA MOORS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 May 2017

Counsel:

JJ Corby for Appellant
KR Muirhead for Respondent

Judgment:

22 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 22 May 2017 at 4 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: JJ Corby, Auckland.
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

MOORS v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1067 [22 May 2017]

The issue

[1] The appellant seeks permanent name suppression. Although this is an appeal, no real challenge is made to Judge Jelas’ reasoning in the Court below.1 Rather, the appellant submits a material circumstance has since changed so publication of her name would now cause “extreme hardship” to her children.2

Background

[2] The appellant is serving a sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment in relation to a total of seven representative charges: six of theft by a person in a special relationship and one charge of false accounting. In short, the appellant stole $164,272.40 from her employer through false invoicing. The offending occurred over one year and nine months, and involved at least 76 discrete incidents of dishonesty.

[3] The appellant has earlier convictions for similar offending (committed in

2004 and 2005), which attracted the attention of the New Zealand Herald in 2005. Her name was not suppressed in relation to that offending.

[4] The appellant has four children, aged between 4 and 19 years. She uses two names. Two of the children have one; two the other.

[5] In 2011, a Herald article about the earlier offending was re-circulated in social media. Related online commentary was derogatory. The appellant says this caused a breakdown in her relationship with her eldest child. He remains estranged.

[6] Before the District Court, the appellant contended publication of her name may have a similar impact on her next eldest child, X, who is doing well at a local high school and playing sport at a representative level. He wrote a letter to the
District Court, which was placed before the Judge.

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200(2)(a).
2 Police v Moors [2017] NZDC 6058.

District Court judgment

[7] Judge Jelas reserved her decision. Her Honour concluded while publication of the appellant’s name would affect her children, hardship would not be extreme. The Judge considered:

(a) Estrangement (following re-circulation of the article) was because the eldest child had been ignorant of his mother’s offending. The present situation was distinguishable as the children knew of the offending.

(b) X’s letter was silent on the issue of publication.

(c) It was expected the children would soon move to Australia to be with their aunt.

(d) The offending was serious. The public was entitled to know about it,

including the offender’s identity.

[8] The Judge concluded the children may, however, suffer undue hardship.3 So,

Her Honour suppressed their names but not the appellant’s.

A précis of the arguments

[9] As foreshadowed, Mr Corby’s submissions in support of 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 Moors v Police

Details

AGLC: Moors v Police [2017] NZHC 1067
Case: [2017] NZHC 1067
Decision Date: 22 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moors v Police, the appellant, Ursula Jacinta Moors, was serving a sentence for theft and false accounting. The appellant sought permanent name suppression on appeal, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred that would cause her children extreme hardship if her name was published. The appellant had previously been convicted for similar offences and her name had been published in the media. The District Court had previously declined to suppress the appellant's name, but had suppressed the names of her children. The High Court was asked to consider whether the appellant's appeal should succeed.

The key legal issue was whether the appellant had demonstrated a material change in circumstances that would justify suppression of her name under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The appellant argued that the children had not moved to Australia as expected, and that publication of her name would cause the children bullying and harassment. The Crown argued that the appellant had not met the threshold for suppression, which required a very high level of hardship.

The Court found that while the appellant's children may suffer hardship, the hardship did not reach the threshold for suppression. The Court noted that the children's names were already suppressed and that the appellant's argument that suppression was necessary to ensure efficacy of the order was without merit. The Court also noted that some of the evidence advanced in support of the appeal was not fresh and that personal criticism of the District Court was inappropriate.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's name remained unsuppressed.

Orders