Parker v The Queen

[2020] NZHC 1345

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-000675

[2020] NZHC 1345

BETWEEN

JOSEPH DENNIS PARKER

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

First Respondent

STUFF LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing:

5 June 2020

Counsel:

MR Heron QC, I Brookie and CEM Agnew-Harington for Applicant

RK Thomson for First Respondent RKP Stewart for Second Respondent

Judgment:

16 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 11 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Law, Wellington.

MR Heron QC, Auckland.
I Brookie, Auckland.

CEM Agnew-Harington, Auckland. RKP Stewart, Auckland.

PARKER v R [2020] NZHC 1345 [16 June 2020]

Table of Contents

Para No

A difficult case  [1]

The story so far  [6]

The defendants’ offending  [16]
Apparent references to Mr Parker in the evidence  [23]

Principle  [38]

Is there a real risk publication of Mr Parker’s name in connection with

the trial may cause him undue hardship?  [44]
The Sese and Joe messages  [46]

The discretionary stage of the analysis

The defendants’ modus operandi  [62]
Seriousness of the offending  [65]
Public interest in the charging decision and adequacy of the

Police investigation  [68]

Natural justice  [77]

Open justice  [80]

Evaluation  [82]

Result  [83]

Other matters and orders  [84]

A difficult case

[1]    People are entitled to know what happens in the courts, including the evidence adduced in a criminal trial. This case is about whether Joseph Parker may suffer undue hardship if his name is published in connection with the 2019 trial of Tevita Fangupo, Tevita Kulu and Toni Finau. It is also about whether countervailing interests, including the public interest in  the  open  reporting  of  criminal  trials,  outweigh  Mr Parker’s possible hardship. The case is not about whether Mr Parker has committed criminal offences or helped others do so. Mr Parker has not been charged with any offence. Indeed, Mr Parker has been told he will not be. Therein lies the unusual aspect of the case—and primary difficulty.

[2]    Another arises this way. As is so often true of multi-defendant drugs trials, much of the evidence comprised digital messages between the defendants, and between the defendants and others. Two messages referred to “sese and joe” (Sese and Joe) in an incriminating context: a Californian-based exchange of currency later used to buy methamphetamine. The Crown suggested at trial Mr Parker was “joe” (Joe). Mr Parker says it is now clear he cannot have been Joe, as he was in Doha, not

California. Mr Parker therefore contends the facts were not as I or the Court of Appeal apprehended, but these ‘facts’ have been publicised. So, his position is now “exponentially” worse than it was last year, and the balance favours permanent name suppression.

[3]    To this, Stuff Ltd1 contends nothing has really changed, as most of the evidence remains undisturbed. It says there is a…