R v Mouat

[2017] NZHC 2048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2016-020-002911 [2017] NZHC 2048

THE QUEEN

v

SUSAN ELIZABETH MOUAT

Hearing:	On the Papers
Appearances:	J Marinovich for the Crown R Fairbrother QC for the Defendant
Judgment:	25 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J [re media application]

[1]      On 4 September 2017 Susan Elizabeth Mouat is to stand trial in the High Court at New Plymouth for the manslaughter of her husband Bruce Kevin Mouat on or about 16 July 2011 at Hawera.

[2]      An application has been made for in court media coverage by Adam Ray on behalf of NewsHub.  The dates of coverage sought are from 4 September 2017 until the end of the trial and permission is sought to film, take photos and record sounds. The application is expressed to be subject to the standard conditions.

[3]      I sought counsels’ submissions on the media application at the teleconference which was held on 22 August 2017.  Mr Marinovich indicated that the Crown abided the decision of the Court.  Mr Fairbrother QC for the defendant indicated that he did not oppose the media coverage application but said that in the absence of more

information as to what was intended, opposed film and audio coverage.

R v MOUAT [2017] NZHC 2048 [25 August 2017]

[4]      I invited Mr Fairbrother to contact Adam Ray to discuss what was proposed and to see whether agreement could be reached.  If such agreement could be reached I invited Mr Fairbrother to file a memorandum which I could then consider.

[5]      Following  a  discussion   with  Adam  Ray  Mr  Fairbrother  has  filed  a memorandum dated 24 August 2017.

[6]      In the memorandum filed by counsel for the defendant a reference was made to certain vulnerabilities of the defendant and to the fact that any media publicity of the trial is likely to have an adverse impact on the 12 year old daughter of the defendant and the deceased.

[7]      Mr Fairbrother submitted that a two minute maximum for photographing the defendant (as stipulated in R v Crutchley1) was appropriate.

[8]      As  acknowledged  by  Mr Fairbrother  the principle of open  justice  is  the starting point when considering media applications.  The concept of open justice can be departed from only where the demands of justice require.

[9]      There are some unusual features in this case.  One of those are the privacy interests of the defendant and deceased’s daughter.   On 22 August 2017 I made a suppression order in relation to the publication of her name.

[10]     Although she is not a witness in the case she may be mentioned in the evidence of those who are giving evidence.  No media coverage is to identify or refer to her.

[11]     The only other condition I impose is that Ms Mouat may only be filmed or photographed in the dock when she first enters the Courtroom at the beginning of the trial for no more than two minutes and before the jury is empanelled.

[12]     Should Ms Mouat elect to give evidence, I will consider whether that calls for any additional direction.

1      R v Crutchley HC Ham CRI 2007-068-0083, 16 May 2008 Keane J.

[13]     Subject  to  these  qualifications  I  grant  the  application  on  the  standard conditions.

Churchman J