R v Netzler - [2020] NZHC 1649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI 2020-070-000781

[2020] NZHC 1649

THE QUEEN

v

ANTHONY CHARLES NETZLER

Hearing: 8 and 9 July 2020 (Heard at Rotorua)

Appearances:

A Pollett for the Crown

C G Tuck for the Defendant

Judgment:

9 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment is delivered by me on 9 July 2020 at 4:00pm.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Law Aid International. Tauranga

R v NETZLER [2020] NZHC 1649 [9 July 2020]

Introduction

[1] Anthony Netzler faces two charges, one for importation of methamphetamine and the other for possession of methamphetamine for supply.1

[2] Mr Netzler was arrested on 13 February 2020. He was granted interim name suppression by Judge Sygrove on 17 February 2020.

[3] Mr Netzler remains in custody, having been declined electronically monitored bail by Peters J on 12 May 2020.

[4] On 10 June 2020 Moore J confirmed a two-week trial will commence on 27 September 2021. Moore J also recorded that Mr Netzler, by agreement, has been joined as a co-defendant with Mr Charles Care.2

[5] On 15 June 2020 Mr Netzler applied for continued name suppression on the grounds of extreme hardship and the risk of prejudice to his right to a fair trial in terms of s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and to preserve his right to be presumed innocent, as provided for in s 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[6] Mr Netzler’s application for continued suppression originally sought suppression of Mr Netzler’s name until verdict. However, at the hearing on 8 July 2020, Mr Netzler’s counsel, Mr Tuck, said he was seeking continued suppression only until the next call-over date on 5 August 2020. Mr Tuck explained that this would give him time to work through with Mr Netzler the implications of material that had recently been disclosed by the Crown.

[7] Ms Pollett, counsel for the Crown, said that this amendment to Mr Netzler’s application did not change the Crown’s opposition to Mr Netzler’s application.

[8] I observed to Mr Tuck that, notwithstanding the amended duration of the application, s 200(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the authorities make it clear that any application for continued suppression after an interim order is made at

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a), 6(1)(f) and 6(2).
2 Pursuant to s 138(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

a defendant’s first appearance falls to be considered under the high standards that apply for suppression under s 200 of the Act.

Alleged offending

[9] The serious charges Mr Netzler faces arise from an operation undertaken by the Police National Organised Crime Group in 2019 which, it is alleged, uncovered the importation of methamphetamine into New Zealand as part of an international drug smuggling operation. If proven, it would be one of the largest importations of methamphetamine into New Zealand to date.

[10] The…

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 Netzler

Details

AGLC: R v Netzler [2020] NZHC 1649
Case: [2020] NZHC 1649
Decision Date: 9 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anthony Charles Netzler was charged with the importation of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for supply. Netzler sought to continue an interim name suppression order, which had been granted by Judge Sygrove, until the next call-over date, in order to consider the implications of the disclosure of material by the Crown. The legal issue before the court was whether the interim suppression order should be continued based on the grounds of extreme hardship or the risk of prejudice to a fair trial. The court found that the threshold for suppression had not been met on any of the bases of argument presented by Netzler. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the suppression order. The interim suppression order was dismissed and lifted.

Orders