R v J

Case [2024] NZHC 2257 13 August 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

PERMANENT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

PERMANENT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE PARTICULARS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH [5][2](d)-(f), [10](b)-(d), [12],

[13] AND [16](b)-(e) OF THIS JUDGMENT

PERMANENT DIRECTION THAT JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, DOCUMENTS OR FILES OF ANY KIND RELATED TO THIS DEFENDANT MAY NOT BE ACCESSED, EXCEPT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION OF THIS COURT, PURSUANT TO R 5(2) OF THE SENIOR COURTS (ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS) RULES 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-8205

[2024] NZHC 2257

THE KING

v

J

Hearing: 17 July 2024

Appearances:

A M Harvey for the Crown

A M S Williams and K N Stitely for the Defendant J Kenny for The Press/Stuff

Judgment:

13 August 2024

REDACTED JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

(As to permanent suppression orders)

R v J [2024] NZHC 2257 [13 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] The defendant applies for permanent suppression orders effectively confirming the interim suppression orders made by Osborne J on 15 February 2024, which have been continued until this application is determined.1 The Crown supports the application, but Mr Kenny for The Press/Stuff opposed the application.

[2] I grant the orders sought. My reasons for granting the orders are outlined in this judgment.

Background

[3] The defendant was charged, along with others, for drug-related offending arising out of the Police operation code named Operation Mist. He was charged with participating in an organised criminal group, importing the class A controlled drug cocaine, attempting to import cocaine and money laundering. The latter three charges were laid as representative charges and the defendant pleaded guilty to them on 19 October 2023.

[4] On 15 February 2024, the defendant was sentenced by Osborne J to 10 years and four months’ imprisonment on the charge of importing the class A controlled drug cocaine, five years’ imprisonment on the charge of attempting to import the class A controlled drug cocaine, five year’s imprisonment on the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, and three years six months’ imprisonment on the charge of money laundering.2 All of these sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and two months imposed on the lead charge of importing the class A controlled drug cocaine.

[5]On the same day, Osborne J made interim orders as follows:3

[2] I suppress from publication:

(a)the name, image and all identifying aspects of the defendant;

(b)the fact that the defendant entered guilty pleas;

1      […]
2      […]
3      […]

(c)the particular charges to which he pleaded guilty;

(d) […]

(e) […]

(f) […]

(g)the content of submissions for and at this hearing; and

(h)the content of the sentencing remarks that will follow today save to the extent that there is no suppression of the fact that one defendant in this proceeding has been sentenced today to the period of imprisonment that is imposed…

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 J

Details

AGLC: R v J [2024] NZHC 2257
Case: [2024] NZHC 2257
Decision Date: 13 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v J before Harland J in the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry involved the defendant seeking permanent suppression orders in relation to his identity, image, and other identifying aspects. These orders aimed to confirm the interim suppression orders made by Osborne J on 15 February 2024, which were continued until this application was determined. The Crown supported the application, while The Press/Stuff opposed it. Harland J granted the application, and his reasons for doing so are outlined in the judgment.

The legal issues before the court included whether there were grounds under sections 200 and 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to make permanent suppression orders concerning the defendant’s identity, the contents of the submissions, and the sentencing remarks. The defendant argued that publication would cause extreme hardship, endanger his safety, and prejudice the maintenance of the law. The Press/Stuff, on the other hand, contended that the significant public interest in Operation Mist, which involved the importation of cocaine, justified lifting the suppression orders. Harland J found that the compelling reasons provided by the defendant outweighed the public interest in this case and granted the application for permanent suppression orders.

Harland J concluded that publication of the defendant's identity and other specified details would likely cause extreme hardship and endanger the defendant's safety. He determined that the public interest in this case could be adequately reported without disclosing these sensitive details. Harland J found that the defendant's arguments under sections 200(2)(a), (e), and (g) and section 205(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act were well-founded. Therefore, he made permanent orders suppressing the defendant’s name, image, and all identifying aspects, as well as the content of submissions and sentencing remarks, except for the fact of the defendant's sentencing and the minimum period of imprisonment, which could be reported with the defendant referred to as an "unnamed defendant." Additionally, Harland J made a permanent direction under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 that documents relating to the defendant could not be accessed without prior permission from the court.

Orders