R v H - [2016] NZHC 2052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-5315 [2016] NZHC 2052

THE QUEEN

v

H

Hearing: 16 August 2016

Appearances:

E P Priest for the applicant
M K Regan for the Crown

Judgment:

31 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 August 2016 at 4pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Blackstone Chambers, Auckland. Kayes, Fletcher, Walker, Manukau.

R v H [2016] NZHC 2052 [31 August 2016]

Introduction

[1] The defendant is charged with kidnapping, in relation to the kidnapping and death of Ms Jindarat Prutsiripron, the victim in this matter.

[2] The defendant now applies for name suppression until conclusion of the trial, on the basis that publication of her name would cause her extreme hardship and would also endanger her safety by endangering her health, relying on ss 200(2)(a) and 200(2)(e) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) respectively.

The allegations

[3] The victim was a 50 year old Thai woman who immigrated to New Zealand with her family around 1989. She died after escaping from the boot of a moving car on 1 March 2016, on the Crown case, because of threats or fear of violence from the defendants.

[4] There are two sets of defendants. The first set, comprising five defendants, have all been charged with manslaughter. Those defendants, alongside the defendant and two others, also face charges of kidnapping.

[5] It is alleged that some of the defendants knew the victim through drug- dealing. The other defendants, including the applicant, according to the Crown, are all friends and associates together in a group which they call “Ghost Unit”.

[6] The Crown says that the defendants, including the defendant, went to the victim’s address on 15 February 2016 to kidnap the victim, but they were unable to locate her. At 2.30am that morning, a resident of the street observed people acting suspiciously on the street and called the Police. When Police arrived, they located two vehicles parked near the victim’s home address, and 5 – 6 men dressed in security uniforms, with the defendant. The men said they were security for a bar in Auckland and were waiting for their shift to change over.

[7] On 29 February 2016, the victim communicated with an associate who wanted to buy drugs from her. At about 8.00pm, the associate and his girlfriend travelled to her home, and outside the address met one of the defendants. The victim was not home. They went to a bar to wait and returned at 9.30pm. The associate texted the victim to come outside, and she came and sat in the backseat of their car. Another defendant and another male opened the doors of the associate’s car and dragged her out of the vehicle, threatening her.

[8] She was placed in a vehicle, and driven around and gagged and bound. The following day, just before 7.00pm, she escaped from the boot of a car at an intersection. She fell…

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 H

Details

AGLC: R v H [2016] NZHC 2052
Case: [2016] NZHC 2052
Decision Date: 31 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case, H, has applied for name suppression in relation to her involvement in the kidnapping and death of Ms Jindarat Prutsiripron. The defendant argues that publication of her name would cause her extreme hardship and endanger her safety, relying on ss 200(2)(a) and 200(2)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA). The legal issues to be decided by the court were whether the threshold for suppression was met and, if so, whether the discretion should be exercised in favour of suppression. The court found that the threshold for suppression was not met, as there was no real and appreciable risk that publication would endanger the defendant's safety or cause her extreme hardship. The court also considered the discretion stage of the analysis and concluded that the principles of open justice outweighed the risks in this case, given the seriousness of the offending. Therefore, the application for name suppression was dismissed.

The court weighed the risks against the principles of open justice and found that the latter outweighed the former. The court noted that the offending in this case was highly serious and had attracted significant attention, and there was a public interest in knowing the identity of those connected with the case. The court also considered the defendant's arguments, including her health issues and the potential impact on her family and community, but found that they did not meet the high threshold for extreme hardship or endanger her safety. The court concluded that the principles of open justice should prevail and that the defendant's name should not be suppressed.

Orders