R v Huang

[2007] NZCA 79

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 462/06 [2007] NZCA 79

THE QUEEN

v

XIAOHUI HUANG

Court:            William Young P, Robertson and Arnold JJ Counsel:  C P Comeskey for Appellant

K G Stone for Crown

Judgment:      19 March 2007         at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The  application  for  an  order  revoking  the  suppression  order  made  on

13 December 2006 is dismissed.

R V HUANG CA CA 462/06  19 March 2007

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by William Young P)

[1]      On 13 December 2006 this Court dismissed a bail appeal by the appellant who is facing trial in April this year on serious drug charges.

[2]      The official transcript of the judgment contains an order:

prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings in news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible database until final disposition of trial.

At the conclusion of the delivery of the oral judgment an order to that effect was announced.

[3]      Counsel for the appellant seeks an order revoking the suppression order.  He says, and accurately, that such an order was not sought by either the appellant or the Crown and that the Court did not give any reasons for the making of the order.

[4]      The Crown opposes the lifting of the suppression order.

[5]      Suppression orders of the kind made are entirely standard when pre-trial rulings or judgments are delivered.   Indeed they are so standard that counsel customarily do not seek them.  The reason for making such orders is obvious – so obvious as to go without saying.   Such judgments customarily refer to material which will not be before the jury.   So publication, particularly if it results in a judgment being available on the internet, carries the real risk that inappropriate information will come to the attention of jurors at a later trial.

[6]      In the course of the judgment we commented on the strength of the case and also on the associated issue whether the appellant is a flight risk.  Our assessments on these points were material to the issue of bail, but ought not be available to the jury which tries the appellant.   This consideration warrants the suppression order which was made.

[7]      Accordingly the application is dismissed.

Solicitors:

P Williamson, Auckland for Appellant

Luke, Cunningham & Clere for Crown