R v M - [2024] NZHC 676

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2021-227-1

[2024] NZHC 676

THE KING

v

M

Judgment:

(On the papers)
25 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[Application for suppression of name]

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 March 2024 at 11.45 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
MWIS (Whangārei) for Crown
R M Mansfield KC (Auckland) for Defendant

R v M [2024] NZHC 676 [25 March 2024]

Introduction

[1]M applies for permanent name suppression.

[2] M was found guilty of murder by a jury. The homicide occurred on 7 January 2021 when M was 14 years old. He killed an adult acquaintance by stabbing him many times.

[3] On 25 July 2023, the Court of Appeal1 quashed M’s sentence of life imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and two months.

[4] M has had interim name suppression throughout. At his sentencing he applied for the interim order to be made permanent. I postponed making my decision until after the Court of Appeal’s judgment was delivered since it would be highly relevant.

[5] In my Minute of 6 October 2023, I pointed out that the submissions and reports going to the application were made in June or July 2022. I asked whether counsel wished to update their submissions or provide further materials. I also asked whether the victim’s family continues to oppose permanent name suppression (as was the position at sentencing).

[6] Mr Mansfield KC2 advised that he would provide further materials going to M’s progress in the custody of Korowai Manaaki. I gave him until 1 December 2023 to do so. Nothing was received by that date, which surprised me. On 13 March 2024, I pointed out the absence. The next day I received a short memorandum.

[7] The Crown maintains its opposition to the application. On 13 March 2024 it advised that the victim’s family continues to oppose permanent name suppression.

1 M (CA434/2022) v R [2023] NZCA 319.
2 In memoranda dated 27 October 2023 and 17 November 2023.

The law

[8] I may make an order forbidding publication of M’s name only if I am satisfied that publication would be likely to cause him extreme hardship.3

[9] The definition of “name” includes any particulars likely to lead to the person’s identification.4

[10]“Likely” has been held to mean “the existence of an appreciable risk”.5

[11] A two-stage analysis is required. I must first be satisfied that publication of M’s name would be likely to cause him extreme hardship. If I am, then I must determine whether in the exercise of my discretion I should forbid publication of M’s name.

[12]As Jagose J explains:6

[8]The first stage:

… insists that the court determine on what principled basis suppression might be granted. The legislation does not…

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 M

Details

AGLC: R v M [2024] NZHC 676
Case: [2024] NZHC 676
Decision Date: 25 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

M, a young person who was 14 years old at the time of committing a murder, applies for permanent name suppression. M was found guilty by a jury and has had interim name suppression throughout his trial and sentencing. The Court of Appeal has already quashed his life imprisonment sentence and substituted a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and two months. M's application for permanent name suppression was postponed until after the Court of Appeal's judgment was delivered. The court was required to determine whether M's application for permanent name suppression should be granted, considering the principle of open justice and the best interests of the young person. The court found that while M's age and the nature of the crime did complicate the assessment, the threshold of extreme hardship was not crossed as there was no specific evidence that publishing M’s name would cause him severe suffering or privation. The court dismissed M’s application for permanent name suppression but extended name suppression until 2.15 pm on 26 April 2024 to allow M the opportunity to appeal the decision.

Orders