R v A HC Hamilton CRI 2006-019-2933

[2007] NZHC 106

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2006-019-002933

THE QUEEN

v

A

Hearing:         6 March 2007

Appearances: M N Sturm for Crown

W C Pyke for Accused

Judgment:      6 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J

ON IN-COURT MEDIA COVERAGE

Solicitors:

Almao Douch, Crown Solicitors, PO Box 19173, Hamilton

Copy to:
W C Pyke, PO Box 19 271, Hamilton

Waikato Times Newspaper, Hamilton

R V A HC HAM CRI 2006-019-002933  6 March 2007

[1]        A    appears  before  the  Court  today  for  sentence  having pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted murder in which the victim was her husband.

[2]      Before hearing from counsel on the sentencing issue I have heard them and a representative  of the  Waikato  Times  newspaper  in  respect  of  that  publication’s application for in-Court media coverage.   That paper seeks the right to take photographs during the sentencing and points to a high degree of public interest in the  matter.    That  public  interest  may  in  part  be  the  result  of  the  fact  that Ms A  ,  although of Maori descent,  has  adopted the  Muslim  faith.    Her husband, who  was the victim of the attack, is a person who  emigrated to  New Zealand from Malaysia and he is also a Muslim.  Apart from that there is, of course, an inherent public interest in any case which involves an allegation that one spouse has attempted to murder the other.

[3]      The Crown adopts a neutral stance on the application.

[4]      For the offender, Mr Pyke opposes the application highlighting the interests both of the offender’s husband and of the four children of the marriage.  He submits that there is no real public interest in the publication of Ms A  ’s face, nor any suggestion that publication of her image might be necessary to protect other members of the public or that she is any risk to members of the public.  He points out that to the victim it  would be  highly offensive  for  his wife’s photograph to  be published.

[5]      I think in these circumstances the interests of the victim and the children should be paramount and outweigh any public interest that might exist in publication of her image and I have decided that the application for in-Court media coverage should be declined.  It is declined accordingly.