R v DP - [2015] NZHC 1765

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRES(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT RP PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-204-187 [2015] NZHC 1765

THE QUEEN

v

DP RP

Hearing: 29 July 2015

Appearances:

K Raftery and K Snelgar for the Crown

M N Pecotic and J-A Kincade for DP D S Niven and P K Hamlin for RP

T G Goatley for media interests

Judgment:

29 July 2015

Reasons:

29 July 2015

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF LANG J
[On applications for permanent name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on29 July 2015 at 3.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
K Raftery, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
K Snelgar, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
M N Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland
J-A Kincade, Barrister, Auckland
D S Niven, Barrister, Auckland
P K Hamlin, Barrister, Auckland
T Goatley, Bell Gully, Auckland

Date……………

R v DP [2015] NZHC 1765 [29 July 2015]

[1] Following a trial before a jury DP was acquitted on a charge of murder but convicted of manslaughter. He is due to be sentenced on 31 July 2015. His co- defendant, RP, was acquitted on a charge of manslaughter.

[2] DP and RP seek an order that their names and identifying particulars be permanently suppressed from publication. I have elected to deal with that application prior to sentencing so that the focus of the sentencing hearing will not be on the issue of suppression.

[3] The Crown and several sections of the mainstream news media oppose the application so far as it relates to DP. The latter comprise NZME Publishing Limited, Fairfax New Zealand Limited, Media Works TV Limited and Television New Zealand Limited (the media interests.)

[4] The Crown is neutral in relation to the application by RP, and counsel for the

media interests did not have instructions in relation to RP’s application

Background

[5] The murder charge was laid following an attempted robbery of the Railside

Dairy in Henderson on the morning of 10 June 2014. On that date DP, who was then

13 years of age, went to the dairy with RP. RP was 12 years of age at this time. DP entered the dairy carrying a knife, either in his pocket or in a sports bag. RP remained by the door of the dairy carrying a steel pole.

[6] CCTV camera footage shows that DP then entered into a discussion with the dairy owner, Mr Kumar. The nature of the discussion was not revealed at trial, but it related presumably to DP seeking money from Mr Kumar. There was no apparent aggression by either DP or RP towards Mr Kumar during this period.

[7] Matters changed significantly when Mr Kumar’s wife entered the dairy from the rear of the premises holding a cellphone in the air for DP and RP to see. At that point DP immediately produced a knife and adopted an extremely aggressive stance

towards her. When her husband began…

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 DP

Details

AGLC: R v DP [2015] NZHC 1765
Case: [2015] NZHC 1765
Decision Date: 29 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Following the conviction of DP on a charge of manslaughter, both he and his co-defendant, RP, applied for permanent suppression of their names from publication. The Crown and the media opposed the application in respect of DP. The court had to determine whether DP and RP would suffer extreme hardship if their names were published, and if so, whether it should exercise its discretion in favour of suppression. In respect of RP, the court was satisfied that he would suffer extreme hardship if his name was published, given his age, his acquittal, and the difficulties he faces in his life. In contrast, the court found that DP would not suffer extreme hardship if his name was published, as many of the factors DP's counsel relied on were consequences of the serious criminal offending and not sufficient to engage the provision. The court also considered the seriousness of the offending and the public interest in publication, and concluded that it would not exercise its discretion in favour of suppression. The court declined the application for permanent suppression of DP's name, but made an order suppressing any visual or photographic image that might lead to his identification.

Orders