R v K HC Auckland CRI 2007-092-14990

[2007] NZHC 1024

This case has been anonymized

PUBLICATION PERMITTED SAVE FOR NAME OF OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CHILD OR AUCKLAND PASTOR REFERRED TO IN THIS JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2007-092-14990

THE QUEEN

v

K

Hearing:         8 October 2007

Counsel:         S Mount for Crown

L Smith for Accused

Judgment:      8 October 2007

(ORAL) JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:

L Smith, Auckland

R V K HC AK CRI 2007-092-14990  8 October 2007

[1]      On 2 October 2007, I granted bail to Mr K   on strict terms.  He was to be released on bail at 10am tomorrow morning.  The delay was to allow the person with whom he was required to reside to return to New Zealand before Mr K   was released.

[2]      Over the weekend an article appeared in a newspaper suggesting that Mr K   would be applying to vary terms of bail to enable him to reside at an address in Northland.   Both yesterday and today, there have been articles in newspapers stating that he was to reside with an Auckland pastor and suggesting that he was in regular contact with an eight year old girl while formerly bailed.

[3]      A joint memorandum was filed this morning by counsel for the Crown and the accused.  Though I made an order on the papers this morning, I have elected to have the issues raised by the memorandum ventilated in open Court this afternoon so that there is no suggestion these issues are being debated secretly.

[4]      There are continuing Police inquiries into possible breaches of Mr K  ’s earlier terms of bail.  Until those inquiries are completed it would be inappropriate for bail to be allowed.  For that reason, the bail I granted on 2 October 2007, which was to take effect as from tomorrow, is revoked.  Mr K   is remanded in custody to appear at callover at 9am on 24 October 2007.  Any further bail application shall be referred either to me or to the intended trial Judge, Venning J.

[5]      I have concerns about some of the reporting, particularly in relation to the identification of an Auckland pastor and an eight year old girl.   Identification of those people is suppressed, as is any information likely to identify either of them.

[6]      What may be reported meantime, is that inquiries are being undertaken by the Police and it will not be until those inquiries into potential breaches of bail have been concluded, that any further application for bail will be considered.

[7]      Because the fact of potential involvement with an eight year old girl has been published in the media, the nature of the inquiries into breach of bail can refer to the

fact that it relates to contact with a child under the age of 14 years while subject to the earlier bail conditions.  But, care must be taken not to publish the information identifying the child.   It is in her interests, primarily, that the suppression order is made, although there are also some fair trial issues involved.

[8]      A copy of this judgment will be released to media outlets to which my previous judgment was made available.  Reporting must occur within the ambit of

the present restrictions.

P R Heath J