Parker v The Queen - [2021] NZSC 20

ORDER CONTINUING SUPPRESSION OF THE APPLICANT’S NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION AND ANY IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS UNTIL 2 PM ON FRIDAY 12 MARCH 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 98/2020
[2021] NZSC 20

BETWEEN	JOSEPH PARKER Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN First Respondent STUFF LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	M R Heron QC, I M Brookie and C E M Agnew‑Harington for Applicant R K Thomson for First Respondent R K P Stewart for Second Respondent
Judgment:	11 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
BWe make an order continuing suppression of the applicant’s name, address, occupation and any identifying particulars until 2 pm on Friday 12 March 2021. Suppression will lapse at that time.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal,[1] dismissing his appeal against the decision of the High Court declining his application for name suppression.[2]
[1]Parker v R [2020] NZCA 502 (Kós P, Wylie and Muir JJ) [second CA judgment].
[2] X v R [2020] NZHC 1345 (Downs J).
The background to the application is set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and we need only describe it in brief terms.
The applicant is a well‑known professional boxer. During a trial of three men accused of importation and supply of methamphetamine, there were a number of references to a third party said to have had some involvement in the offending or association with one or more of the offenders. These references can be broken into three groupings.
An aspect of the Crown’s case against the three accused involved the allegation that this third party was the applicant. However, the applicant was not charged and although he was approached by police, he did not make any statement. The police obtained a warrant to search his home but did not execute it.

The applicant sought name suppression but this was refused by the trial Judge.[3] The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal.[4] He then sought leave to appeal to this Court, but before that application had been dealt with, a further development occurred. The development was that the applicant established that the first group of references to a person called “Joe” during the trial, which indicated an involvement in changing New Zealand currency for one of the defendants, was not the applicant.[5] The Crown accepts this is the case.
[3]R v Fangupo [2019] NZHC 1211 (Downs J). The second respondent, Stuff Ltd, exercised its right under s 210 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to be heard in relation to the suppression application and has participated in all subsequent hearings. It made submissions to this Court opposing the present application for leave.
[4]Parker v R [2019] NZCA 350 (Courtney, Venning and Dunningham JJ) [first CA judgment].
[5]Following the first CA judgment, the applicant also produced further evidence to show that publishing his name would…

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 Parker v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Parker v The Queen [2021] NZSC 20
Case: [2021] NZSC 20
Decision Date: 11 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Parker, a well-known professional boxer, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against the decision of the High Court declining his application for name suppression. The appeal arose from a trial of three men accused of importation and supply of methamphetamine, where there were references to a third party said to have had some involvement in the offending or association with one or more of the offenders. These references can be broken into three groupings. An aspect of the Crown’s case against the three accused involved the allegation that this third party was the applicant, however, the applicant was not charged and although he was approached by police, he did not make any statement. The police obtained a warrant to search his home but did not execute it. The applicant sought name suppression but this was refused by the trial judge. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal. He then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The legal issues the Court was required to decide were whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted, and whether the applicant was entitled to the benefit of a suppression order since it was his only available remedy. The Court found that the applicant’s case for leave was based on the fact-specific nature of his position, which had now been determined against him on four separate occasions, albeit that the first two occasions were based on a mistaken understanding of the factual position. The Court also found that the submission that the applicant should be entitled to the benefit of a suppression order since it was his only available remedy could not be reconciled with the terms of the relevant legislation, which clearly contemplates that the existence of undue hardship establishes the power to make a suppression order, rather than obliging the Court to make one.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave. The Court made an order continuing suppression of the applicant’s name, address, occupation and any identifying particulars until 2 pm on Friday 12 March 2021. After that time, there will be no impediment to the reporting of the applicant’s name.

Orders