Nottingham v The Queen - [2019] NZSC 144

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER IN [2014] NZHC 550 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS IN [2014] NZHC 550 AND [2014] NZHC 1848 REMAINS IN FORCE.

NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER IN [2018] NZDC 15368 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF T, C, H, B AND M REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 83/2019

[2019] NZSC 144

BETWEEN
DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Court: Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person

C A Brook for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time is granted. B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

Introduction

[1] Mr Nottingham was convicted following a jury trial of two charges of

DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZSC 144 [12 December 2019]

publishing information in breach of suppression orders1 and five charges of criminal harassment.2 He was sentenced by the trial Judge, Judge Down, to a term of 12 months home detention and 100 hours of community work.3 His appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.4 The Court allowed the Solicitor-General’s appeal against sentence. The Court quashed the part-served sentence of home detention and imposed a new sentence of 12 months home detention together with 100 hours of community work.

[2] Mr Nottingham seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.5

Background

[3] The charges relating to the suppression orders concerned orders for permanent name suppression made by Winkelmann J in relation to the two young men charged with assaulting Stephen Dudley.6 Mr Dudley subsequently died. The Crown case was that Mr Nottingham published, or had published, an article on the blog laudafinem.com headed The Murder of Stephen Dudley – New Zealand’s Culture of Rugby, Thuggery & Coverup. The article included photographs and the names of the two young men.

[4] The criminal harassment charges also related to publications on Lauda Finem. The publications related to five complainants who had each crossed paths with Mr Nottingham in some way.

[5] Brief reference needs to be made to three of the five complainants, Ms H, Ms B, and Mr M. Ms H worked for her husband in a real estate business. Mr H had previously worked with another real estate agency, AB, with which Mr Nottingham was later associated. Mr Nottingham’s claim, in essence, was that by running two websites Mr H diverted enquiries being made to AB to the website associated with his new agency. Mr Nottingham said this diverted business away from Mr Nottingham to

1      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 211(1).
2      Harassment Act 1997, s 8(1).
3      R v Nottingham [2018] NZDC 15373.
4      Nottingham v R [2019] NZCA 344 (Wild, Thomas and Muir JJ) [CA judgment].
5      His application is out of time, but only just. There is no objection to our granting an extension of time.
6      R v M [2014] NZHC 1848

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 Nottingham v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Nottingham v The Queen [2019] NZSC 144
Case: [2019] NZSC 144
Decision Date: 12 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the applicant, Dermot Gregory Nottingham, sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for two charges of publishing information in breach of suppression orders and five charges of criminal harassment. The respondent, The Queen, did not object to the extension of time but opposed the leave to appeal. The court was tasked with determining whether there was sufficient grounds for Nottingham to appeal and whether the application for an extension of time should be granted. The court considered the arguments presented by Nottingham, including his claims of perjury and misdirection by the trial judge and prosecution, the relevance of truth in determining whether the conduct amounted to harassment, and the impact of his physical health on his ability to stand trial. The court found that the issues raised by Nottingham did not give rise to the appearance of a miscarriage of justice and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. However, the court granted the application for an extension of time as there was no objection from the respondent.

The court considered the submissions made by Nottingham and found that there was no error in the way the trial judge directed the jury as to the relevance of truth. The court also found that the truth or falsity analysis on which Nottingham's submission was based was academic as the material published could at best be described as virulent opinion with only a tangential connection to anything arguably true. The court held that the assessment of the honesty and reliability of witnesses was again a classic jury function and that there was no question of general or public importance arising from the particular factual context. The court also found that the evidence about telephone calls was a jury matter and that the Court of Appeal had already considered the reasonableness of the verdicts on the suppression charges. The court concluded that nothing raised by Nottingham gave rise to the appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

Orders