Purutanga v The the King - [2022] NZHC 2616

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST: SEE [20]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-6696

[2022] NZHC 2616

BETWEEN
CORY PURUTANGA

Applicant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 7 October 2022 (further memoranda received 10 October 2022)

Appearances:

K Burroughs for Applicant

J N Hamilton for Respondent

Judgment:

11 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 October 2022 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

PURUTANGA v THE KING [2022] NZHC 2616 [11 October 2022]

[1] Mr Purutanga pleaded guilty to the murder of his partner and the mother of their four children. On 31 August 2022, Moore J sentenced Mr Purutanga to life imprisonment.1 The Judge also ordered Mr Purutanga to serve a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment before being eligible to apply for parole.

[2] Mr Purutanga now seeks name suppression. He does so on the basis that his children will suffer extreme hardship if his name is published.

Jurisdiction

[3] Suppression in this context is governed by s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act), which relevantly provides as follows:

200 Court may suppress identity of defendant

(1) A court may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of a person who is charged with, or convicted or acquitted of, an offence.

(2) The court may make an order under subsection (1) only if the court is satisfied that publication would be likely to—

(a) cause extreme hardship to the person charged with, or convicted of, or acquitted of the offence, or any person connected with that person; or

(b) cast suspicion on another person that may cause undue hardship to that person; or

(c) cause undue hardship to any victim of the offence; or

(d) create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; or

(e) endanger the safety of any person; or

(f) lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law; or

(g) prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences; or

(h) prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand.

…

1 R v P [2022] NZHC 2197.

[4] It is now well established that an application for suppression must be determined on a two-stage basis.2 First, the Court must determine whether any of the threshold requirements set out in s 200(2) or 202(2) have been made out. If that is the case, the Court must go on to consider how it should exercise its discretion by balancing the identified threshold interests against the need for transparency in criminal proceedings.3

[5] Extreme hardship is a very high threshold. It requires a degree of hardship well beyond that which normally follows as a consequence of the publication of an offender’s name.4

[6] Ms Hamilton for the Crown suggested it may also be possible to deal with the application under s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Purutanga v The the King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 2616
Decision Date: 11 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Purutanga applied for name suppression following his conviction for the murder of his partner and the mother of their four children. The High Court considered the application on the basis of the threshold requirements set out in s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court was required to determine whether publication of Mr Purutanga’s name would cause extreme hardship to him or undue hardship to his children or victims of the offending.

The Court accepted the Crown’s submission that suppression can also be considered under s 200(2)(c) of the Act because there have been cases in which the courts have proceeded on the basis that suppression under s 200(2)(c) is potentially available for children of victims of offending. The Court was provided with a report from a clinical psychologist who had interviewed the applicant’s four children. The psychologist expressed concerns about the likely effect of publication on the children’s welfare. However, the Court was not satisfied that the information contained in the psychologist’s report demonstrated that the children were likely to suffer extreme or undue hardship if their father’s name was published. The Court found that the hardship the children had suffered to date, and may suffer once publication occurs, was the product of their family environment and the fact that their father killed their mother. These issues would require considerable resources to address, but this flowed from matters unrelated to the issue of publication of their father’s name.

The Court therefore dismissed the application for name suppression. The interim order for suppression was to remain in force until midnight on 16 October 2022.

Orders