Legal Research
Cases
Parangi v The Queen

Parangi v The Queen

Case [2018] NZHC 3123 30 November 2018

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT UNTIL THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2016-087-738

[2018] NZHC 3123

BETWEEN
DONNA CATHERINE PARANGI

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 23 November 2018

Appearances:

S Gray for the Applicant

H Sheridan for the Respondent
R Stewart for Radio New Zealand and Stuff Limited

Judgment:

30 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me
on 30 November 2018 at 12.15 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

Izard Weston, Wellington

Counsel: S Gray, Auckland
R Stewart, Auckland

PARANGI v R [2018] NZHC 3123 [30 November 2018]

Introduction

[1] Donna Parangi faces a retrial on one charge of manslaughter in relation to the death of her infant grandson, Isaiah Neil.1

[2] Ms Parangi successfully appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeal.2 The retrial will be held in the Hamilton High Court in March 2019. Ms Parangi presently has name suppression.

[3] Ms Parangi applies for take down orders directing that particular articles displayed online be removed for the period leading up to the retrial through to its completion. She says the publicity during the first trial was of such a nature that, in the absence of take down orders, it is likely to create a real risk that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held,3 and that one or more of the jurors will have an irrational bias against her.

[4] The Court made a direction that Ms Parangi serve the media organisations against which the orders were sought so that they would have an opportunity to be heard.4 Only Radio New Zealand Ltd and Stuff Ltd responded. They both oppose the application.

[5] While the Crown did not adopt a strong adversarial stance, its position was that the orders were not necessary in order to achieve a fair trial.

The alleged factual background

[6] The Crown case at the first trial was that on 2 November 2015, Ms Parangi and her daughter, Lacey Te Whetu (Isaiah's mother), drove to Kawerau to purchase synthetic cannabis.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 152 and 160(2)(b).
2      Parangi v R [2018] NZCA 46.
3      Contrary to her right under s 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4      The websites are listed as follows: NZ Herald, Stuff, Newshub, SST Offender Database, Radio NZ, Facebook (Rotorua Daily Post), Whale Oil Beef Hooked, Newstalk ZB, Newsie – United Independent New Zealand News, Pressreader, Greymouth Star, Sunlive news, Ashburton Guardian online, Family First NZ, Loabay, Better Blokes.

[7] Ms Parangi and Ms Te Whetu took Isaiah with them for the journey. When they returned home at about 12.30 pm, Isaiah was asleep in the car. They decided to leave him there. The car was parked outside in the sun with the windows up and the doors closed.

[8] Ms…

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 Parangi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Parangi v The Queen [2018] NZHC 3123
Case: [2018] NZHC 3123
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donna Catherine Parangi is facing a retrial on one charge of manslaughter in relation to the death of her infant grandson, Isaiah Neil. Ms Parangi has successfully appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeal, and the retrial will be held in the Hamilton High Court in March 2019. Ms Parangi presently has name suppression, and she applies for take down orders directing that particular articles displayed online be removed for the period leading up to the retrial through to its completion. She argues that the publicity during the first trial was of such a nature that, in the absence of take down orders, it is likely to create a real risk that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held, and that one or more of the jurors will have an irrational bias against her. The court had to decide whether there is a real risk to the defendant’s fair trial rights if the order is not made, and whether take down orders should be made. The court concluded that there is a real or substantial risk that a determined and irresponsible juror might undertake internet inquiries, despite a judicial direction to the contrary. However, the court was not satisfied that there is a real risk of prejudice so as to impact on Ms Parangi’s fair trial rights even if a disobedient juror were to undertake an internet search and locate the material identified in Ms Krebs’ affidavit. The application for take down orders is refused.

Orders