R v L - [2019] NZHC 308

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST IN RELATION TO ASPECTS OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011: SEE PARAGRAPH [42].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000318

[2019] NZHC 308

THE QUEEN

v

L

Hearing: 1 March 2019

Appearances:

Aaron Perkins QC for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 March 2019

[ORAL] JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

R v L [2019] NZHC 308 [1 March 2019]

Introduction

[1] On 3 October 2018 I committed the defendant for contempt of Court. I now address the disposition of that matter.

[2]The defendant also makes an application for name suppression.

[3] By way of background and context, the defendant provided the Court with interpretation services during the trial of Alosio Taimo.1 I was the presiding Judge. She did so only in respect of one Crown witness. The trial occupied 10 weeks. Mr Taimo faced 106 sexual charges relating to 18 complainants. On 24 October 2018 a jury found him guilty of 95 charges relating to all but one of the complainants. On 22 February 2019, I sentenced Mr Taimo to a total of 22 years’ imprisonment.2

The events of 3 October 2018

[4] The conduct giving rise to the defendant’s contempt occurred on 3 October 2018. The trial was then in its seventh week. All the complainants had given evidence. Mr Taimo was in the course of giving evidence-in-chief.

[5] At 2:15 pm that day I returned to Court after the lunchtime adjournment. The Registrar passed me a note. It was from two of the jurors and was timed at 1400 hours. I shall refer to the jurors as Juror A and Juror B. Their note read as follows:

“Myself and [Juror B] were outside smoking and were approached by the [lady] that was providing translation for trial. She engaged in small talk and said, ‘I know I’m not supposed to talk to you. I was unsure at the start but now I think the truth is coming out, I think he is telling the truth.’ She also said something along the lines of, ‘Makes you wonder if the real culprit is still out there.’ She then left to go and get us muffins she had made.”

[6]Juror B added the following:

“After Juror A left myself and [S] were sitting outside and she had mentioned that she shouldn’t be talking to us and that it could get herself and us in trouble.”

1 R v Taimo CRI-2016-085-002938.
2 R v Taimo [2019] NZHC 234.

[7] It is unclear whether the “[S]” referred to in the note was the defendant or one of the other jurors.

[8]The foreman signed the note. But he also added this comment:

“This frustrates me as our Jury have tried our best to be professional during this long trial.”

[9] I convened the Court in the absence of the jury to discuss these developments with counsel. As these progressed, a further note from Juror A was passed…

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 L

Details

AGLC: R v L [2019] NZHC 308
Case: [2019] NZHC 308
Decision Date: 1 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v L involved the defendant, who was an interpreter during a criminal trial, being committed for contempt of court. The defendant approached jurors during the trial and engaged in inappropriate conversations with them, which led to her being charged with contempt. The defendant was represented by Aaron Perkins QC, who argued for the dismissal of the contempt charge and for name suppression. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided by Moore J, heard the case and delivered an oral judgment on 1 March 2019.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the defendant's conduct constituted contempt of court and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for the contempt. The Court also had to determine if the defendant's name suppression should be continued.

Moore J found that the defendant's conduct did constitute contempt of court, as it involved an attempt to influence jurors in the discharge of their functions. However, the Court decided not to impose a penalty on the defendant, considering her mental health issues, the limited criminality of her conduct, and the consequences she had already suffered, such as the loss of her job and potential financial difficulties. The Court also granted the defendant's application for name suppression, as it was satisfied that there was an appreciable risk that publication of her name would cause extreme hardship to her and her family. The suppression order, however, was granted subject to conditions, allowing the Ministry of Justice to access the relevant information required to make an informed decision as to the defendant's continued employment as an interpreter.

In conclusion, the defendant was discharged without penalty and granted name suppression subject to conditions. The Court emphasised the importance of the defendant addressing her mental health issues to avoid any future incidents of this nature.

Orders