R v Reddy - [2016] NZHC 1294

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

NO PUBLICATION FOR 5 DAYS AND UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE
COURT FOLLOWING THE EXPIRY OF THAT PERIOD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-092-011748 [2016] NZHC 1294

Hearing: Counsel:

THE QUEEN

KAMAL GYANENDRA REDDY 19 May 2016

NE Walker, IJ Clancy and H Benson-Pope for Crown GC Gotlieb for Defendant

KM Wilson for Media Or 11.5isatioHigh

Judgment: 15 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J
(as to suppression of evidence)

This judgment ivas delivered by me on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 1 pm
pursuant to t.m. of the igh Cowl Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Susan Knowles Deputy Registrar High Court Auckland

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Manukau.

JB LJebs, Napier.

GC Gotlieb, Auckland. Bell Gully, Auckland.

Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction	[1]
The factual and procedural background
Reddy investigation	[⁵]
Mr Big investigations	[13]
Crown position	[18]
Relevant statutory background	[24]
Is the first stage threshold crossed?	[32]
The second discretionary stage — should an order be made?
Relevant international decisions	[40]
Relevant New Zealand decisions	[49]
The competing concepts	[63]
The factor in favour of suppression — prejudice to Police investigations	[65]
The factors against suppression	[71]
Conclusion	[76]
Result	[77]
Introduction

This is an application for the suppression of the operational details of a lengthy and complex undercover Police operation, following a jury trial where those details were given in evidence, and constituted much of the prosecution case against the defendant. There has been interim suppression of the details of the undercover operation up until now.
The case pitches a number of important concepts directly against each other. On one side is the principle of open justice, and the allied concepts of the right to have a public trial and to receive information. These work against granting suppression. On the other side, working for suppression, is the concept that the lawful detection of terrible crimes should not to be hindered by the disclosure of effective Police undercover techniques. In New Zealand a balancing of these concepts takes place in the statutory context of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which contain provisions of direct relevance.
Suppression of the details of the Police investigation is sought by the Crown on behalf of the New Zealand Police, represented by Ms Walker. This is opposed by Mr Gotlieb for Mr Reddy, who wishes to have all the details published. Suppression

is also opposed by a group of leading New Zealand media organisations represented by Ms Wilson.¹ Mr Edward Gay, a reporter for Radio New Zealand, has also filed submissions in opposition to suppression on behalf of that entity.

I have concluded that there should be no suppression, and before setting out

my detailed reasoning I summarise my findings:

(a)There is likely to be some prejudice to Police use of Mr Big operations in the future if there is publication. I do not consider there would be a…

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 Reddy

Details

AGLC: R v Reddy [2016] NZHC 1294
Case: [2016] NZHC 1294
Decision Date: 15 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kamal Reddy was convicted of the murder of Pakeeza Yusuf and Juwairiyah Kalim after a three week trial. The Police investigation involved an undercover operation known as the Crime Scenario Undercover Technique or the "Mr Big" technique. The case pitched the principles of open justice and the right to a public trial against the need for suppression to allow the lawful detection of crimes. The Crown sought suppression of the operational details of the undercover operation, while Mr Reddy and the media opposed this. The court concluded that suppression should not be granted. The likely prejudice to future Police investigations was considered limited because many of the details were already in the public domain and easily accessible. The principle of open justice and the right to receive information weighed in favour of publication. The desirability of a fully informed public debate in New Zealand also favoured publication. The interim suppression order was terminated, and no suppression orders concerning the details of the Mr Big operation were made. Suppression orders relating to the undercover officers and any details that might lead to their identification remained in place. An interim suppression order of the details of the undercover operation was made for five working days to give the Crown an opportunity to make any applications.

Orders