R v Moody - [2024] NZHC 1024

INTERIM ORDER FOR THREE DAYS FROM PUBLICATION DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT 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 WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-296-031

[2024] NZHC 1024

THE KING

v

MASON MOODY

Hearing: 30 April 2024

Appearances:

A J Brosnan for the Crown

L M Sziranyi and G J Ross for Defendant

Judgment:

30 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Application for permanent name suppression of defendant)

[1]Mason Moody, who has recently turned 17, applies for final name suppression.

[2] On 15 March 2024 I sentenced Mr Moody to 12 months’ home detention with post-detention conditions in respect of one charge of attempted murder, committed when he was aged 15.1 I adjourned the application for final name suppression to allow the defence to obtain further material. Specifically, a psychological opinion from registered clinical psychologist Mr Nev Trainor dated 16 April 2024.

1 R v M [2024] NZHC 576.

R v MOODY [2024] NZHC 1024 [30 April 2024]

[3] I now decide the application for final name suppression, having considered Mr Trainor’s psychological opinion and the submissions of counsel.

Background

[4] At sentencing, I explained the background to the charge. I will briefly canvas those facts.

[5] In May 2022, when Mr Moody was aged 15, his relationship with his former girlfriend ended. One of Mr Moody’s friends, the victim, started a relationship with his former girlfriend. Mr Moody had told the victim that he was okay with the new relationship when in fact it upset him.

[6] Mr Moody set out to kill the victim, making Google searches about discrete clothing, Molotov cocktails and running away from home. On 12 May 2022, Mr Moody told a friend he wanted to hurt the victim and the following day he brought a knife to school, causing him to be sent home.

[7] On 15 May 2022 Mr Moody unsuccessfully tried to arrange a fight with the victim. Later that evening, he went to the victim’s address wearing discrete clothing with a machete bearing a 45.5 cm blade. He called the victim outside and swung the machete at him, causing large cuts to his chest and right forearm, and minor cuts to his forehead. The victim required emergency and plastic surgeries. In sentencing I noted that the offending was premeditated, caused serious injuries (although the victim had made a full physical recovery) and use of a weapon were aggravating factors.

Submissions

For the Crown

[8] Ms Brosnan, for the Crown, submits the defendant should not receive final name suppression because he and the people connected to him are not likely to experience extreme hardship if his name is published.

[9] The Crown refers to the recent decision in M (SC 13/2023) v R2 where the Supreme Court held that consideration of the young person’s best interests must occur at all stages of the name suppression inquiry.…

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 Moody

Details

AGLC: R v Moody [2024] NZHC 1024
Case: [2024] NZHC 1024
Decision Date: 30 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mason Moody, who recently turned 17, applied for a final name suppression order after being sentenced to 12 months' home detention for attempted murder, committed when he was 15. The court had to decide if the defendant should receive final name suppression. The Crown argued that the defendant should not receive final name suppression as he and the people connected to him are not likely to experience extreme hardship if his name is published. The Crown referred to five comparator cases where final name suppression was either granted or declined. For the defendant, counsel submitted that final name suppression should be granted as publication of the defendant's name would cause him extreme hardship such that he would struggle to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society after serving his sentence. The court considered the best interests of the child, the psychological opinion of Mr Trainor, the victim's view, and the relevant law. The court decided not to grant final name suppression as the defendant would not likely experience extreme hardship from the publication of his name. The interim name suppression would remain in force for three days from the date of this decision to enable the defendant time to consider it.

Orders