[1] The accused is standing trial on one count of blackmail.1 Since he was first charged, interim name suppression orders made in the District Court have been in force in relation to Crown witnesses and the accused. Those orders were made unopposed. They have remained in force since they were first made, seemingly without anyone addressing the question of whether such widespread name suppression should remain in force.

[2] At the commencement of the trial the Crown signalled its intention to have the Court extend the interim name suppression orders. The accused did not oppose the continued suppression. However Mr Imran Ali, a representative of the Northern Advocate, did challenge their continuation. Further, I considered that their continuation required proper consideration.

[3] The trial could not proceed before the jury for three reasons, one of which was the need to determine whether the interim name suppression orders should be continued for the duration of the trial. The jury was empanelled and then released while the question of name suppression and other legal issues were addressed by counsel in chambers.

[4] For unrelated reasons, after the luncheon adjournment the jury panel was discharged.2 The application for interim name suppression continued. Whilst it started in the course of the trial, the discharge of the jury meant that it continued, and was dealt with as a pre-trial issue.3

[5] In its notice of application the Crown sought an order forbidding publication of the details (including name, address, occupation and any other matters leading to the identification) of the following persons on an interim basis pending the outcome
of the trial due to commence 2 May 2016:

1      The charge pre-dates the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
2      A new jury was to be empanelled later in the week.
3      It was not clear to me if the procedural issues that arose in Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd [2003] 20 CRNZ 194 at [13] might be applicable in terms of when an appeal can be brought. Accordingly, I have described the process that was followed here.

1. Crown witnesses to be called at trial:

1.1Christopher John Hlavac (Auckland) Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand (partner in the law firm Young Hunter, practising in Christchurch and Auckland);

1.2 Jacqueline (Jackie) Suzanne Johnson, Chief Executive officer of

IAG New Zealand;

1.3 Brendan David McGillicuddy, Christchurch, General Manager of

Direct Insurance Claims IAG New Zealand Ltd; and

2. Persons connected with the proceeding:

2.1The IAG Group and its employees and agents (international – including IAG New Zealand Ltd and any of its subsidiaries, primarily State Insurance);

2.2Corporate Risks Ltd,…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2016] NZHC 860
Case: [2016] NZHC 860
Decision Date: 3 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robinson, the accused stood trial on a charge of blackmail. The charge stemmed from communications the accused allegedly made to IAG New Zealand Ltd and its employees, accusing them of dishonest and criminal conduct in relation to the denial of an insurance claim for a fire at his home. The accused is alleged to have threatened to publish damaging information about the insurer and its employees if his demands were not met. The Crown sought to extend interim name suppression orders made in the District Court to cover the trial. Mr Imran Ali, a representative of the Northern Advocate, challenged the continuation of those orders. The court had to determine whether the suppression orders should be extended, considering the balance between open justice and the need to protect the reputation of the accused's alleged victims. The court found that the broad scope of the suppression orders sought by the Crown would effectively preclude the media from reporting on the trial. The court was also concerned that the harm the applicants feared may have already occurred due to some prior publication of adverse material. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish a real and appreciable risk that publication would cause undue hardship. Therefore, the application for interim name suppression was refused. However, interim name suppression orders were made to allow the Crown to seek leave to appeal from the Solicitor-General.

Orders