NOTE: PUBLICATION OF DEFENDANT’S NAME OR ANY PARTICULARS LIKELY TO LEAD TO DEFENDANT’S IDENTIFICATION IS FORBIDDEN: S 200, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
https://
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CRI-2022-019-4775
[2023] NZHC 2203
THE KING
v
MRL
Hearing:
30 November 2022 and 9 August 2023
Appearances:
R L Mann for Crown R E Webby for MRL
Date of judgment:
16 August 2023
JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J
This judgment was delivered by me on 16 August 2023 at 3.00pm.
………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Counsel/Solicitors:
Rebekah Webby, Barrister, Tauranga Hamilton Legal, Hamilton
R v MRL [2023] NZHC 2203 [16 August 2023]
[1] MRL faces separate charges she intentionally injured and later murdered a child,1 for trial in November 2023. The child, who died on 9 April 2022, was the 26-month-old daughter of MRL’s partner, who had day-to-day care of the child since the child was three months old. MRL was 16 years old at the time her partner obtained care of the child and 18 years old at the time of the child’s death. She was charged with the child’s murder in November 2022.
[2] MRL presently has interim name suppression.2 Her application for continued name suppression — made principally on the ground of “extreme hardship”3 — initially was heard by me on 30 November 2022 and adjourned, after my preliminary indication her application (made on the basis of adverse, predominantly social media, publicity) would not succeed, to enable her “to substantiate another foundation for non-publication”.4 MRL’s application since has expanded to include her mental health. This is my judgment on that application.
[3] It is relevant, despite the parties’ compliance with my directions to enable prompt determination of the adjourned application, its hearing only resumed on 9 August 2023 during adjournment of an unrelated three-week criminal trial before me. It also is relevant the proceeding overall has “languished” and substantial work now is required to maintain MRL’s November 2023 trial (whether on the scheduled or a later date).5
[4] Given my trial commitments over these weeks, and the pendency of MRL’s trial, my reasons for this urgent judgment are more cursory than I would prefer.
Background
[5] MRL’s charges were the subject of media publicity and reporting, identifying MRL only as an 18-year-old or teenage girl or woman. A 4 November 2022 New Zealand Herald article reported she was charged with murder the previous day and distinguished her from the child’s mother, while recording the “scene” of the
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 189(1).
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200(4).
3 Section 200(2).
4 R v [MRL], HC Hamilton CRI-2022-019-4775, 30 November 2022 at [4].
5 R v [MRL], HC Hamilton CRI-2022-019-4775, 2 August 2023.
child’s death was “at the child’s home” inferentially in Hamilton and the “accused woman” was granted bail “to a Bay of Plenty property”.
[6] Online responses to the article included seemingly pseudonymous commentary directed against MRL:
“BAIL!!! You disgusting…
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 MRL
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v MRL [2023] NZHC 2203
Case
[2023] NZHC 2203
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
MRL is charged with the murder of a 26-month-old child, the daughter of MRL's partner, who had day-to-day care of the child from when the child was three months old. MRL was 16 when her partner obtained care of the child and 18 at the time of the child's death. MRL faces trial in November 2023. MRL presently has interim name suppression. Her application for continued name suppression, made principally on the ground of "extreme hardship", was initially heard by Jagose J on 30 November 2022 and adjourned to enable her to substantiate another foundation for non-publication. The application has since expanded to include her mental health. The court was required to decide whether the suppression of MRL's identity should continue. The court considered the statutory grounds for suppression, the comparative standard of "extreme hardship", and the principle of open justice. The court found that MRL's identification now would be likely to create a real risk of prejudice to her fair trial. The need to protect fair trial rights outweighed the general principle that court proceedings should be transparent. The court ordered that publication of MRL's name, address or occupation, as a person charged with offences, is forbidden.