R v Filo

[2016] NZHC 3055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-004-000193 [2016] NZHC 3055

THE QUEEN

v

TEVITA MAFI FILO

On the papers
Counsek:	B H Dickey and N R Webby for Crown L Freyer for Defendant
Judgment:	14 December 2016

JUDGMENT NO. 2 OF GILBERT J

This judgment is delivered by me on 14 December 2016 at 12.45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Public Defence Service, Auckland

R v FILO No. 2 [2016] NZHC 3055 [14 December 2016]

[1]      The Crown applies for an order suppressing the names of two witnesses, who I shall refer to as witnesses A and B.  The application is made pursuant to s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and is advanced on the basis that publication of these witnesses’ names would be likely to cause them undue hardship.

[2]     The application has been served on the defendant and on all media representatives who have expressed interest in the case.   The application is not opposed.  My reasons for granting the application can therefore be brief.

[3]      Witness A is aged 94.  He lives with his daughter, witness B.  They live at the property where the victim was stabbed and they found her body lying in their garden soon after.  Apart from the obvious trauma they will have suffered as a result of this tragic event, they have been subjected to considerable intrusion from members of the public stopping outside their property and peering in. They state that members of the public frequently stand outside their house and in their driveway pointing and staring at their house while they can be seen in their kitchen or working outside in their garden.   They are concerned that if their names and address are published, this unwelcome and unreasonable invasion of their privacy will worsen considerably.

[4]      I accept  that  the concerns expressed by these  witnesses  about  the likely effects on them of having their names and address published are genuine and well- founded.     This  case  has  attracted  considerable  publicity  and  public  interest. However, there is no legitimate public interest in knowing the identity of the witnesses who had the misfortune of living at the property where the victim died.  I am satisfied that these witnesses will suffer undue hardship if their identifying particulars are published.  This is particularly so, given that witness A is elderly and witness B is caring for him in their home.

Result

[5]      I make  an  order pursuant  to  s  202  of the Criminal  Procedure Act  2011 forbidding  publication  of  the  name,  address  or  occupation  of  witness  A  and

witness B.

M A Gilbert J