R v O

Case [2025] NZHC 2619 9 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT

PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE PARAGRAPH [33(a)].

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS OR CONNECTED PERSONS A, C, D AND E PURSUANT TO S 202 OF THE

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE PARAGRAPH [33(b)]

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S RELATIONSHIP TO A, B, C, D AND E PURSUANT TO SS 200 AND 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE PARAGRAPH 33(c)].

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO IS A COMPLAINANT IS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2025-019-13

[2025] NZHC 2619

THE KING

v

O

Hearing: 6 August 2025

Appearances:

J Hamilton for the Crown R Barnsdale for O

Judgment:

9 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

R v O [2025] NZHC 2619 [9 September 2025]

This judgment is delivered by me on 9 September 2025 at 2.15 pm.

……………………………… Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Counsel:
Richard Barnsdale, Barrister, Hamilton

Introduction

[1] On 10 June 2025, O pleaded guilty to one charge of murder and two charges of attempted murder. On 3 September 2025, Powell J imposed life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 23 years. I rely on the facts as set out in those sentencing notes.1 O has applied for permanent name suppression. Ms Hamilton for the Crown opposes name suppression for O but submits that permanent name suppression should be granted to the adult victim (A), the surviving child victim (B) and the deceased (C), and that their relationship with O should be suppressed.

[2] B is entitled to automatic statutory suppression under s 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA). As the Crown consents to permanent name suppression of A and C, those orders are now issued. This is appropriate under s 202(2)(d) of the CPA to prevent the identification of B given their close familial connections (A is B’s mother and C is B’s sibling) and the fact that B and C share a surname. The interest in preserving B’s statutory suppression and anonymity outweighs the limited public interest in disclosure of A and C’s identities.

[3] The same considerations also apply to B’s two surviving siblings (D and E) identification of whom I consider would not be in the public interest and would likely lead to identification of B as they are her siblings and share her surname. So, I also order permanent name suppression over D and E under s 202(2)(d). The remainder of this judgment concerns whether O’s identity should also be suppressed.

O’s submissions

[4] O’s application is made on the basis that he and his family have been threatened and he is concerned that, if his name or photograph…

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 O

Details

AGLC: R v O [2025] NZHC 2619
Case: [2025] NZHC 2619
Decision Date: 9 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v O involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to one charge of murder and two charges of attempted murder. Following sentencing, O applied for permanent name suppression, citing threats against himself and his family. The Crown opposed O’s application for permanent name suppression but consented to permanent name suppression for the adult victim (A), the deceased (C), and B's siblings (D and E). The central legal issue was whether O's identity should be permanently suppressed. The court considered the principle of open justice, counterbalancing factors identified in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the competing interests of O, the victims, and the public. The court found that while O's mental health issues and threats were serious, they did not meet the threshold for "extreme hardship." However, the risk of identifying B, who was entitled to automatic suppression under s 204 of the CPA, warranted interim suppression for O until B turned 18 years old, balancing the interests of B's anonymity against public safety considerations. The court granted interim name suppression for O until 1 September 2041, alongside permanent suppression for A, C, D, and E, and the suppression of their relationship with O.

Final orders included:
- Interim name suppression for O until 1 September 2041.
- Permanent name suppression for A, C, D, and E.
- Permanent suppression of the relationship between O and A, B, C, D, and E.

Orders