R v Coade

[2024] NZHC 759

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CONNECTED

PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-012-000808

[2024] NZHC 759

THE KING

v

CAROLE ANN COADE

Hearing:

22 February 2024

Appearances:

R D Smith for Crown

S A Saunderson-Warner for Defendant B S Rorrison for Applicant

Judgment:

22 February 2024

Reasons:

10 April 2024

JUDGMENT (REDACTED) OF PRESTON J

(Application for permanent name suppression (connected person))

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 April 2024 at pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

R v COADE [2024] NZHC 759 [10 April 2024]

Introduction

[1]    Ms Coade pleaded guilty to one count of murder of her partner. She was sentenced on 22 February 2024.

[2]    [Redacted] applied for an order permanently suppressing its name, as a person connected to the defendant.1 The school was Ms Coade’s employer at the time of the murder. Its application is supported by affidavits: of the principal of the school, [redacted] and [redacted] guidance counsellor [redacted].

[3]    At the outset of Ms Coade’s sentencing hearing I dealt with this matter in a brief hearing. That hearing took place in open court but by consent in the absence of the defendant, who was represented by her counsel Ms Saunderson-Warner.

[4]    The defendant adopted a neutral position on [redacted]’s application. The Crown did not file written submissions but Mr Smith in oral submissions did not oppose suppression of the name of the school. The Crown accepts that if permanent suppression was not granted there may be an impermissible or improper link drawn between the defendant’s offending, which has no connection with her employer, and the school. Further, counsel submitted that there is no public interest in publication of the school’s identity, in the circumstances.

[5]    Ms Rorrison for the applicant confirmed that an associated application to suppress Ms Coade’s occupation as a teacher was not pursued.

[6]    After hearing from counsel I was satisfied that the threshold in s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) is met on the application and affidavits filed in support and further that I should exercise my discretion to suppress the name of the school. I so ordered, with reasons to follow.

[7]These are my reasons.

1      Criminal Procedure Act 2011:  s 202.

Principles – s 202

[8]    [Redacted] applies for a permanent order under s 202 of the CPA2. That section provides:

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—

(a)   is called as a witness; or

(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

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

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

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

(3)Subsection (1) applies whether or not the court has made an order under section 200 suppressing the identity of the defendant.

(4)An order under subsection (1) suppressing the identity of a witness, victim, or connected person may not prevent publication of the name of the defendant (which may be prohibited only by an  order  made  under section 200) or the nature of the charge.

[9]    Undue hardship is a lesser standard than the “extreme” hardship test in s 200 of the CPA, applicable to offenders.3

2      The application was filed in August 2023 with affidavits in support. This Court granted an interim order, pending sentencing.

3      Parker v R [2020] NZCA 502.

[10]   A school can be a “connected person” for the purposes of the CPA.4 [Redacted] is connected with the defendant as she was, at the time of the offending, an employee of the school.  That is the extent of the connection; there is no link at all between   Ms Coade’s offending and her occupation or employment at the school. The murder took place at the defendant’s home at a time when she was on a period of extended leave from her duties and has no other connection whatsoever with her role or employment.

Grounds

[11]   [Redacted]’s submission and evidence is that publication will cause undue hardship to the school, its staff and students, and damage its reputation. Hardship to staff and students associated with a school, including feelings of anxiety about being under pressure and susceptible to negative online publicity is a recognised basis on which suppression may be granted.5 Reputational damage has also been recognised as a valid hardship in respect of which suppression orders can be sought.

[12]   [Redacted] the school guidance counsellor is a registered psychotherapist and former teacher who in her role provides mental health support and counselling services to students and staff. She deposes that members of [redacted]’s staff have suffered and continue to suffer trauma in relation to this case. This is reflected in a range of physical and mental symptoms and experiences which in [redacted]’s opinion are classic signs of trauma and which have been observed by her or reported to her including by professionals involved in  the  school’s  crisis  response  in  the  weeks  following  Ms Coade’s arrest. In particular, discussions and comments giving rise to high levels of anxiety and drawing negative and unfounded associations between the offending and the staff body as a whole are likely to be greatly amplified by and susceptible to negative online publicity in her view.

4      R v Burrett [2016] NZHC 636.

5 At [31].

[13]   [Redacted] also identifies likely negative outcomes for students as a result of publication, impacting both learning outcomes and their pastoral care, causing hardship in ways carefully identified in the affidavit. Again, the opinion is founded in evidence of signs or symptoms of students traumatised by their awareness of the offending here. It identifies two particular reaction types being likely to be further displayed by students in response; contagion or copycat behaviours – a similar concern as arises following a death by suicide in the school community – and feelings of low self-esteem. The deponent notes that young people are very engaged with the internet and social media and her underlying concern is that publication will make the hardships she has observed significantly more widespread and widely felt in the school community.

[14]   The school principal, [redacted] has been [redacted] principal for the past 12years of his 37 years’ experience in education largely at senior management level. His evidence is that publication will have a lasting impact on the school’s reputation. For reasons related to historical cases of murder involving ex-students of the school – and similarly wholly unrelated to the school. The principal considers publication will compound detrimental effects on [redacted]’s reputation, and records examples of this occurring within those who know of the offending.

[15]   [Redacted] notes a school’s reputation is critical to its ability to attract students and staff and its reputation – its identity – importantly impacts the identity of its students and staff, by association. Reputational damage will impact both those cohorts by swaying parents’ decision making against [redacted] in what is a very competitive secondary school environment. This in turn may directly and significantly affect enrolment numbers and, therefore, staff employment and resources available to students. Such impacts in my view would clearly be unfair and undue.

[16]   So, too, the reported concern arising from a suggestion from a few parents that [redacted] will have “a lot to answer for” if mental health was a factor in the defendant’s alleged offending. Indeed mental health is a prominent factor in the defendant’s offending and a central focus of the sentencing process. The principal’s concern is that publicity linking the school gives rise to a clear risk that readers will form inaccurate impressions of [redacted], as they are unlikely to have sufficient

visibility of or enquire into all of the steps the school took to support and work with the defendant during her employment, and will make unfair judgements about the school, causing undue hardship as a result. [Redacted] also notes impacts on [redacted]’s ability to retain and recruit staff as a result of heightened publicity, at a time which is particularly challenging for the school and its board of trustees given his then imminent retirement.

[17]   In summary counsel submits, and I accept, that publication is likely to have negative outcomes for students and staff of the school generally.

[18]   As noted, there is no connection between the school and the offending beyond the fact that the defendant was employed by the school. The offending did not take place at school, it did not involve Ms Coade’s role as a teacher. She had been on leave for a period prior to the murder on account of her mental health. There will inevitably be a high level of public attention upon the offending. As there is no connection whatsoever between the offending and the school, it does not require a great deal of hardship to meet the threshold of being disproportionate or undue.6 Any reputational damage to the school and, by association, its students and/or staff would be unfounded and unfair.

[19]   The school has met the threshold. I am satisfied on the evidence that undue hardship would be caused to the school, its staff and its students, if suppression were not granted.

[20]   There is, in my view, no public interest in publishing the school’s name in these circumstances. It is appropriate I exercise my discretion in favour of suppression accordingly.

Result

[21]The applicant’s name and identifying details are permanently suppressed.

6      Sacred Heart College v Police [2018] NZHC 3089.

[22]   [Redacted] sought confidentiality orders in respect of the affidavits and submissions in support of the application. I further direct that those documents are not to be accessed except as permitted by a Judge.7

………………………………………

Preston J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Dunedin

S A Saunderson-Warner, Dunedin Anderson Lloyd, Queenstown

7      Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, s 5(2).