ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES,
OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES PURSUANT TO SS 200 AND 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-2020-004-806
[2023] NZHC 275
THE KING
v
C, H and W
Hearing:
2 December 2022 (and further memorandum dated 5 December
2022)
Appearances:
K Hogan and H Moore-Savage for the Crown M Corlett KC for H
H Waalkens KC and K Crossland for X, First Connected Person S Lowery and J Suyker for P, Second Connected Person
Judgment:
23 February 2023
JUDGMENT (REDACTED) OF GAULT J
(Application for permanent name suppression)
This judgment was delivered by me on 23 February 2023 at 2:00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………
R v C, H and W [2023] NZHC 275 [23 February 2023]
[1] Following the delivery of verdicts in R v Zhang,1 in which C, H and W were acquitted of the charges against them of obtaining by deception in relation to a co- defendant’s payment of an alleged donation to the Labour Party in March 2017,2 applications for permanent name suppression have been filed as follows:
(a)H has filed an application for permanent suppression of his identity on the ground that publication is likely to cause him extreme hardship.3 It is common ground that if H is successful, the identity of W (who does not seek permanent suppression herself4) should be suppressed on the basis that publication of her name or identifying details would risk identifying H.5
(b)X, H’s employer, independently seeks permanent suppression of the firm’s name and identifying particulars in connection with the proceeding on the grounds it is connected with H and publication of its identity is likely to cause it undue hardship.6
(c)P, a business run by C’s wife, seeks permanent suppression of its identity on the grounds it is connected with C and publication of its identity is likely to cause it undue hardship.7 It is said that if P is successful, the identity of C should be suppressed on the basis that publication would identify P.8
[2]The Crown abides the decision of the Court but made submissions to assist.
[3] Mr Stewart, counsel for the media interests, did not appear at this hearing but filed a memorandum in advance indicating that they abide the decision of the Court albeit emphasising the importance of open court reporting and mentioning that the Court has long recognised that:
4 Memorandum of counsel for W dated 11 October 2022.
5 Section 200(2)(f).
6 Section 202(2)(a).
7 Section 202(2)(a).
8 Section 200(2)(f). C also filed an application but does not pursue it for himself.
(a)there may be occasions where the public has an interest in acquittals; and
(b)where the damage caused by publicity would plainly outweigh any genuine…
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 C
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v C [2023] NZHC 275
Case
[2023] NZHC 275
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v C, H, and W involved applications for permanent name suppression following the acquittal of C, H, and W on charges related to political donations. H filed an application for permanent suppression of his identity on the ground that publication is likely to cause him extreme hardship. W did not seek suppression for herself but agreed that her identity should be suppressed if H's was. X, H's employer, and P, a business run by C's wife, also sought permanent suppression of their identities on the grounds that publication would cause undue hardship. The Crown and media interests abided by the Court's decision, with the media emphasising the importance of open court reporting. The applicable principles under sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 were not in dispute. The court found that publication of H's name would be likely to cause extreme hardship to his daughters, satisfying the threshold for suppression under section 200(2)(a). The court also found that publication of X's and P's names would cause undue hardship, satisfying the threshold for suppression under section 202(2)(a). Balancing the interests of the applicants against the public interest in open justice, the court determined that the balance clearly favoured suppression in each case. The court made orders permanently suppressing the name and identifying particulars of H, W, X, P, and C.