P v Police HC Dunedin CRI 2006-412-15

[2006] NZHC 477

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI 2006-412-000015

CRI 2006-412-000016

P

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         9 May 2006

Appearances: I Stewart for Appellant

D Robinson for Respondent

Judgment:      9 May 2006

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HON JUSTICE JOHN HANSEN

The appeal is dismissed.

[1]      Brett William P   appeals against the refusal of Her Honour Judge Smith to grant him permanent name suppression.  He was before the Court for sentencing on six matters involving dishonesty, and a re-sentencing on a shoplifting  matter where he was sentenced in June of last year.

[2]      Mr P   is a  young  man, being  born in 1982.   He has offended  in a dishonest way on a number of occasions that have brought him before the Court.

P V POLICE HC DUN CRI 2006-412-000015  9 May 2006

Apparently there was a series of other charges to which he pleaded not guilty and was found not guilty.

[3]      There was reference to his psychiatric condition, and reports from Dr Du Fresne and  his general practitioner  were  placed  before the  Court.    The  general practitioner reports of kleptomania, amongst other things.   Dr Du Fresne seems to confirm  that  diagnosis  and  talks  about  a  compulsive  quality  of  the  offending. Neither of them, in those reports, suggest that Mr P  ’ condition requires name suppression to enable him to be properly treated.

[4]      The pre-sentence report refers to similar matters and notes there is a need for Mr P   to address the problems before him and he has shown motivation to make changes in his life.  However, at the time it appears he also was awaiting the outcome of matters to come before the Court relating to driving and also another dishonest offence which is relevant.

[5]      It is clear that the appellant needs treatment.   However, there is nothing in this material to suggest that name suppression is required for him to be successfully treated.   It appears that he has little or no  ability, without treatment, to  prevent himself from acting dishonestly.  Given the charges that are before the Court involve a number of dishonesty offences, ranging from shoplifting to the taking of a $6,000 motor vehicle,  it  is  my  view  that  the  public are  entitled  to  protection  from his dishonest depredations and the Judge rightly recognised that in refusing to suppress the appellant’s name.

[6]      While one hopes the appellant can address and overcome his problems, as he seems to be a young man of some ability, the reality is that those in the commercial world, and others, are entitled to know that he is someone who will continue to act in a dishonest way until his treatment is effective.

[7]      It follows the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Aspinall Joel Radford Bowler, Dunedin for Appellant

Crown Solicitor, Dunedin for Respondent

CC:

Judge E Smith