R v Cameron - [2025] NZHC 1575

THE 1975 SUPPRESSION ORDER ENDURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH [29]–[30] OF THIS JUDGMENT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-009-7035

[2025] NZHC 1575

THE KING

v

ELLIOTT ALFRED JAMES CAMERON

Hearing: 13 June 2025

Appearances:

B Hawes for Crown

C M Ruane for Defendant
D Nilsson for Media Entities (via VMR)

Judgment:

13 June 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] NZME Publishing Ltd, Stuff Ltd and Radio New Zealand (the media entities), seek an order under s 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) revoking a suppression order which prevents this defendant being named or otherwise identified in relation to a 1975 proceeding in this Court (then the Supreme Court of New Zealand).

[2] In that proceeding, the defendant, Elliott Cameron, who was then aged 27, was found not guilty of the murder of his brother on the grounds of insanity.

R v CAMERON [2025] NZHC 1575 [13 June 2025]

Background

[3] Mr Cameron was one of two children, the other being Jeffery, who was six years younger than Mr Cameron.

[4] Mr Cameron had a normal life until he was 15, when it was discovered he had a brain tumour and required surgery to remove it. This surgery caused a marked personality change and in due course he was admitted to what was then known as Sunnyside Hospital because of behavioural concerns, including demonstrations of violence and aggression.

[5] Following initial admission in 1969, he was in and out of that hospital. In 1975, while on leave from hospital, and living between his parents’ house and the university halls of residence in Canterbury, he shot and killed his brother with a rifle while his brother slept.

[6] Mr Cameron was charged with murder and an initial suppression order was made by the presiding Magistrate on 22 September 1975 “prohibiting publication of the name of the defendant, the deceased, and the defendant’s father”.

[7] Following a short jury trial before Wild CJ, Mr Cameron was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and he was committed as a patient to Sunnyside Hospital. On the application of defence counsel, Wild CJ made an order “continuing suppression of name and any information that may lead to Mr Cameron’s identification”.

[8] Mr Cameron has resided in various institutions ever since although, since 2016, his status as a committed patient lapsed, but he remained living at Hillmorton Hospital as a voluntary patient pursuant to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[9] On 4 October 2024 he killed an elderly woman, Frances Phelps, at her home in Mount Pleasant, Canterbury. He was subsequently charged with murder, pleaded

guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years, on 10 June 2025.1

Jurisdiction for the application

[10] The application to revoke the 1975 suppression order is brought by the media entities. They have standing to do so pursuant to s 210 of the CPA.

[11] While…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2025] NZHC 1575
Case: [2025] NZHC 1575
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the High Court of New Zealand was asked to consider whether a suppression order that had been in place since 1975 should be revoked. The suppression order prevented the naming of Elliott Cameron, who was found not guilty of the murder of his brother on the grounds of insanity. The media entities sought to have the order revoked, arguing that the murder of another individual by Cameron in 2024 constituted a fundamental change in circumstances, warranting the reconsideration of the original suppression order. The court was required to decide whether exceptional circumstances existed that would justify the revocation of the suppression order.

The court found that the reasons for the original suppression order had been entirely spent by the time Cameron committed another murder. The order had been made to protect the family’s privacy and to assist in Cameron’s rehabilitation and reintegration. However, with the passage of time and the death of Cameron’s parents, these reasons were no longer relevant. The court also found that the murder of Mrs Phelps created a huge public interest in understanding whether the risk Cameron posed could have been identified and whether he was appropriately managed. This discussion could only take place with the full knowledge of Cameron’s past involvement in a killing and the ability to frankly discuss why, despite that history, he was no longer seen as a risk to the general public. The court noted that the reasons for making the order, including the need to protect Cameron’s privacy and allow him to lead as normal a life as possible without the stigma of being identified as someone who has killed, were entirely spent at the point he attacked and killed Mrs Phelps.

The court revoked the suppression order, allowing for the full reporting of the 1975 trial. The order was set to take effect from 5 pm on Monday 16 June 2025, giving the defendant’s counsel time to take instructions from the defendant as to whether he would seek to appeal the revocation of the order. If an appeal was pursued, the 1975 order would remain in place until the appeal period expired or the appeal was finally determined.

Orders