R v G

[2022] NZHC 3328

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-096-002253

[2022] NZHC 3328

THE QUEEN

v

G

On the Papers
Counsel:	S Bishop and A Jeffares for the Crown P Paino for the Defendant
Judgment:	9 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Name suppression)

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Wellington Paino & Robinson, Upper Hutt

R v G [2022] NZHC 3328 [9 December 2022]

[1]    On 15 December 2021, the defendant was sentenced to preventive detention for a minimum period of seven years’ imprisonment (MPI), seven years’ imprisonment in relation to incest, one year’s imprisonment in relation to an indecent act on a boy under 16 years and two years’ imprisonment in relation to an indecent assault on a girl under 12 years.1 The sentences are being served concurrently.

[2]    The defendant currently has automatic name suppression as he has committed a qualifying offence (that is, incest) under s 201 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the CPA).

[3]    By memorandum of 7 February 2022, counsel for the Crown advised the Court that:

(a)GG, the only victim of a qualifying offence for the purposes of s 201 of the CPA, sought an order under s 201(4) of the CPA, permitting publication of the defendant’s name;

(b)all other victims (or, in the case of MM, their mother) had advised they were happy for the defendant’s name suppression to be lifted. SK wished however that their name and relationship to the defendant be suppressed;

(c)the views of one victim, PD, were unknown.

[4]    In a minute of 1 July 2022 I noted that, although GG is the only complainant of a qualifying offence for the purposes of s 201 of the CPA, all other complainants will inevitably be affected if name suppression for the defendant were to be lifted. While the existing order under s 203 of the CPA will prevent publication of the other victims’ names, it will not prevent identification, given the nature of the defendant’s connections with each of them. For that reason, I directed that counsel for the Crown clarify that all of the victims, including PD, understood and accepted the consequences of lifting the defendant’s name suppression.

1      R v G [2021] NZHC 3527.

[5]By memorandum of 14 November 2022, counsel has now advised as follows.

[6]    The Officer in Charge has not been able to locate PD and their views are unknown.

[7]    All other victims, except for SK, still wish for the defendant’s name to be published.

[8]    SK no longer wants the defendant’s name to be published. SK’s relationship with the defendant is set out in the original sentencing notes and they could be identifiable if the defendant’s name was published. They are worried that publishing the defendant’s name may make things worse for them and their family.

[9]    In light of SK’s views on name suppression, counsel for the Crown has submitted that the defendant’s name should be permanently suppressed by an order under s 200(2)(f) of the CPA, and that, accordingly, GG’s application for lifting of automatic name suppression should be declined.

[10]   Counsel for the defendant has previously advised that the defendant abides the decision of the Court.

Outcome

[11]   I respect the views of those of the complainants who feel strongly that the defendant should not be able to hide behind name suppression and because they believe there may be other past (or future) victims of his offending.

[12] Ultimately however, having regard to the matters set out at [4], [8]-[9] above, I am satisfied, pursuant to s 200(2)(f) of the CPA, that publication of the defendant’s identity would lead to the identification of some or all of the complainants, being other persons whose names are suppressed by order or by law.

[13]Accordingly I make the following orders:

(a)Declining GG’s application under s 201(4) of the CPA for the defendant’s automatic name suppression to be lifted.

(b)Pursuant to s 200(1) of the CPA, permanently forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of the defendant.

Gwyn J