R v O

[2019] NZHC 3215

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF

WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

ORDER 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 AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-090-6165

[2019] NZHC 3215

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND

O

Respondent

Hearing:	28 November 2019 (by telephone)
Counsel:	S Teppett for Applicant A Bloem for Respondent
Judgment:	9 December 2019

JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 December 2019 at 10.00 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v O [2019] NZHC 3215 [9 December 2019]

[1]                 In my judgment of 19 August 2019, I granted suppression of O’s name until further order of the Court or, at the latest, the commencement of trial. I indicated that the defence must, however, report to the Court as to H’s mental health and what steps had been taken to manage the impact of publication on him within one month. I said, failure to take steps without adequate explanation may be a factor against maintaining suppression.

[2]                 I am advised by Mrs Bloem, for H, that there has been delay in getting appointments and that is partly due to a breakdown in communication. An appointment with an expert psychiatrist has now been organised for 12 December 2019. I am further advised that H is now stable, is on medication and that he has been told about the charges but does not know anything more, including the names of the complainants. It appears also that, apart from his mother, there is no whānau support, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the charges facing O. It is anticipated that at the 12 December 2019 appointment, a plan for future treatment will be developed. It was emphasised to me that the concern is not so much about the general public hearing about the charges, but the impact on H’s immediate social circle and the consequences of that for him personally.

[3]                 The Crown submits that H has had ample time within which to obtain counselling and to manage the impact of publication on him. It therefore seeks publication as soon as is possible.

[4]                 I discussed with both counsel the prospect of a deferred publication date, namely, to January 2020. Mr Teppett has accepted that a publication date in January would meet the Crown’s concerns insofar as providing sufficient opportunity for publication of O’s name in advance of trial (which is to commence on 20 April 2020), which could then have the effect of bringing to the attention the alleged offending to other potential complainants.

Assessment

[5]                 I have come to the view that ample time has been given to H to obtain treatment. I understand that he now knows about the alleged offending but not the details of it. I expect that publication will have a significant impact on him, but I

understand that he will be receiving counselling on 12 December 2019 and a plan will be put in place then to assist him with the likely impacts of publication. I also think there should be a sufficient period to enable H to come to grips with that publication and, on that basis, I have come to the view, for the sake of finality, that I should make an order extending suppression to 5.00 pm, 17 January 2020. I note for completeness that this should afford O the opportunity to appeal this judgment if that is the course that he wishes to take. There should be no expectation of a further extension by this Court.