R v Hammond

[2015] NZHC 183

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-009-10956 [2015] NZHC 183

THE QUEEN

v

STANLEY ROSS HAMMOND

Hearing:	16 February 2015
Appearances:	C J Boshier and C D Newman for Crown A M McCormick and CRD Williams for Defendant
Judgment:	16 February 2015

RULING NO. 1 OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1]      Mr Hammond has enjoyed name suppression until today.

[2]      There is no ongoing entitlement to name suppression, except in the situations identified in s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  The two matters raised by Mr McCormick which might potentially support continued name suppression are that Mr Hammond has a daughter who carries his surname and, it is likely of course that the publication of the charges that her father is facing will cause her some hardship.   The second matter that is raised is that Mr Hammond used to own a business which carries his name and there may be hardship for the new business

owners.

R v HAMMOND [2015] NZHC 183 [16 February 2015]

[3]      I am not satisfied that either of these matters points towards continued name suppression.

[4]      Mr Newman for the Crown has pointed out that the current business owner is content simply to have it recorded that Mr Hammond is no longer involved in the business.

[5]      While I appreciate that Mr Hammond’s daughter will be  affected by the publication of his name, that is really only one further layer to the effects that having her father face these charges will already be having on her.

[6]      The public interest is paramount in knowing who is facing these charges and accordingly name suppression is lifted and Mr Hammond’s name is no longer suppressed.

[7]      I also confirm that statutory suppression orders continue in place to protect the identity of the complainants and that includes any information which could lead to their identity, including their relationship to Mr Hammond, their age, or any other identifying detail.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch

Brandts-Giesen McCormick, Rangiora