R v Burrett - [2016] NZHC 636

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-002748 [2016] NZHC 636

R

v

ROBERT SELWYN BURRETT

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

D L Elsmore for the Crown
R G Glover for the Defendant

D Goldwater as counsel for School X R G Smedley as counsel for School Y

J J K Spring as counsel for Employer Z

Judgment:

11 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] In 2014 and 2015, Mr Burrett was the caretaker at a primary school in Christchurch (school X). While at the school and in a small shed on the school grounds, he committed serious sexual abuse offences involving children attending the school. Mr Burrett was also the driver of a bus for a major bus company (employer Z). In that capacity, he drove disabled children to another school (school Y). He has pleaded guilty to serious sexual abuse offences involving three children,
those offences having been committed when the particular child was on the bus.

R v BURRETT [2016] NZHC 636 [11 April 2016]

[2] Throughout the criminal proceedings against Mr Burrett, the names of the two schools and employer Z have been suppressed. All three applicants now seek permanent suppression orders and I must consider whether the interim suppression orders should continue.

The Law

[3] Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) relevantly provides that:

202 Court may suppress identity of witnesses, victims, and connected persons

(1) A court that is hearing a proceeding in respect of an offence may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of any person who—

…

(b) is a victim of the offence; or

(c) is connected with the proceedings, or is connected with the person who is accused of, or convicted of, or acquitted of the 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 undue hardship to the witness, victim, or connected person; or

…

(c) endanger the safety of any person; or

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

[4] For a person to be “connected with the proceedings”, they must be directly connected with matters before the Court in the sense of relating to or referring to the school or employer concerned.1

[5] The term “person” as used in s 202(1) could include a school or company. I

accept that school X, school Y and employer Z, children at these schools, children

1 R v Shapiro [2008] NZCA 151.

who travelled on the bus and their families are connected to the proceedings and to Mr Burrett as the person who has been convicted of the offences involved in these proceedings.

[6] I accept that, to establish that certain consequences are “likely” as the term is used in…

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 R v Burrett

Details

AGLC: R v Burrett [2016] NZHC 636
Case: [2016] NZHC 636
Decision Date: 11 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Burrett involves the application of suppression orders by three applicants—two schools and a bus company—seeking to prevent the publication of their names in connection with the criminal proceedings against Mr Robert Selwyn Burrett. Mr Burrett, who was the caretaker at a primary school in Christchurch and a bus driver for a major bus company, has pleaded guilty to serious sexual abuse offences involving children attending the schools and travelling on the bus. The applicants sought permanent suppression orders to continue from interim orders made during the criminal proceedings. The High Court of New Zealand had to determine whether the interim suppression orders should continue, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The legal issues before the court were whether the publication of the names of the schools and the bus company would cause undue hardship to the victims, their families, or other connected persons, and whether it would endanger the safety of any person or lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law. The court had to consider the importance of open justice and freedom of speech while balancing these against the potential harm that could arise from the publication of the names.

The court found that the publication of the names of the schools and the bus company could lead to undue hardship and endanger the safety of the victims, their families, and other connected persons. The court accepted that the publication could lead to the identification of the victims, cause distress to the families of the victims, and potentially stigmatise the schools and the bus company. The court also considered that the need for open justice and media access to court proceedings did not necessitate the publication of the names of the schools and the bus company. The court made permanent suppression orders for the names of the schools and the bus company, deleting references to certain information about them from the judgment in recognition of the suppression orders.

In conclusion, the court granted the applications for permanent suppression orders for the names of the schools and the bus company in connection with the criminal proceedings against Mr Burrett.

Orders