R v Ratu

Case [2013] NZHC 3085 21 November 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE APPELLANT WITNESSES' NAMES OR ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS PROHIBITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000317 [2013] NZHC 3085

BETWEEN THE QUEEN Appellant

ANDMATTHEW ROSS RATU, CRUZ SUNNY KIPA FRUEAN, PATRICK WARU, EDWARD HAYES AND SHANE NEVILLE BARLOW
Respondents

Hearing: 15 November 2013

Appearances: G R Kayes for Appellant
P Hamlin on instructions from M Dyhrberg for Respondent
Ratu
R Mansfield for Respondent Fruean
A Ives for Respondent Waru
J B Wickliffe for Respondent Hayes and on instructions from
A MacMillan for Respondent Barlow

Judgment: 21 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 November 2013 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the
High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland

Copy to: M Dyhrberg, Auckland
P Hamlin, Auckland
R Mansfield, Auckland
A Ives, Auckland
A MacMillan, Auckland

R v RATU & Ors [2013] NZHC 3085 [21 November 2013]

Introduction

[1] The defendants in this case face a variety of charges arising out of a riot that

took place at Springhill Prison on 1 June 2013, Queen’s Birthday weekend.

[2] The Crown proposes to call a number of prison officers who were involved in or witnessed the riot to prove the charges. The officers sought interim name suppression to trial. In a ruling delivered on 21 October 2013 Judge E P Paul in the District Court at Auckland declined to prohibit publication of the officers’ names but did prohibit publication of their addresses and occupations.

[3] Of the 29 witnesses who initially sought suppression, 15 seek to appeal the decision refusing name suppression. Two others were not able to be contacted. The appeal is pursued on behalf of those 17 witnesses.

[4] The defendants Ratu, Fruean and Waru oppose the appeal. The defendants

Hayes and Barlow abide.

The District Court decision

[5] In dismissing the application for name suppression the District Court Judge referred to the fear expressed by the witnesses for themselves and their families and considered that it was:1

... not increased to an undue fear by publication as their names are already known to those who would have an interest in intimidation or getting others to act on their behalf.

[6] In support of that conclusion the Judge noted there was no evidence to suggest there had been any threats or actual intimidation levelled against the officers or their wider families since the incident.

[7] Next, the Judge held that, apart from an expression of fear by the witnesses and a general expression of how gangs may behave towards witnesses, there was
nothing more to suggest that that hardship, if there was any, had been elevated to

1 R v Freuan & Ors DC Auckland CRI-2013-004-009350, CRI-2013-004-009348, CRI-2013-004-
009351, CRI-2013-004-009364, CRI-2013-004-009371, 21 October 2013 at [20].

undue or that the safety of any person, whether it be the witnesses or their families, had been established. He concluded:

[23] In short, my assessment is, given 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 Ratu

Details

AGLC: R v Ratu [2013] NZHC 3085
Case: [2013] NZHC 3085
Decision Date: 21 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ratu [2013] NZHC 3085 involves an appeal against the refusal of a name suppression order by the District Court. The appellants, prison officers who witnessed a riot at Springhill Prison, sought to have their names suppressed to protect them from potential harassment by gang members. The District Court had declined to suppress their names, finding that publication would not cause undue hardship. The appellants sought an appeal, arguing that publication would likely cause undue hardship and endanger their safety. The High Court allowed the appeal, granting name suppression until trial. The court found that while publication was not likely to endanger safety, it would likely lead to undue hardship due to the risk of harassment at work and in their home environments. The High Court considered the balance between the principle of open justice and the appellants' right to privacy, concluding that suppression was warranted given the potential for undue hardship.

The legal issues in this case involved the discretionary power of the court to grant name suppression and the criteria for determining when publication would cause undue hardship. The court had to consider the potential for harassment and undue hardship against the principle of open justice and the public's right to know. The High Court found that the District Court had erred by not properly considering the evidence of the appellants' fear of harassment and the impact of publication on their work and safety. The High Court concluded that the appellants were likely to suffer undue hardship if their names were published, warranting suppression until trial. The trial judge would later decide whether suppression should continue after the trial.

Orders