R v Stevens

[2016] NZHC 994

THE DEFENDANT'S NAME IS SUPPRESSED UNTIL FRIDAY, 20 MAY 2016 AT 4.00 PM. SUPPRESSION WILL CONTINUE BEYOND THAT IF AN APPEAL IS FILED BY THEN.

THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP TO MR SHAAN STEVENS

IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2016-085-933 [2016] NZHC 994

THE QUEEN

v

MARK DAVID STEVENS

Hearing:	16 May 2016
Counsel:	P K Feltham for Crown J M Ablett-Kerr QC and G R Fulton for Defendant
Judgment:	17 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

Introduction

[1]      Mr Stevens is charged with murder.  He seeks name suppression through to trial. The basis for the application is that his brother has been convicted of high profile

R v STEVENS [2016] NZHC 994 [17 May 2016]

frauds, and any public association with him will impact negatively on the defendant. His fair trial rights will thereby be undermined.

[2]      Mr Shaan Stevens, the defendant’s brother, was convicted on fraud charges several years ago.  He then gave evidence on the trial of the two principals in the offending – Messrs Rowley and Skinner. They were Wellington accountants who were convicted of serious tax fraud. Their trial at the time had some public interest.1

[3]      I am advised Mr Shaan Stevens was a person of some prominence prior to him pleading guilty to multiple charges of using a document with intent to defraud.  He held a position on the University Council and was chair of Wellington Free Ambulance.  The point being, his then prominence means there may be some public memory of his offending. Mrs Ablett-Kerr QC identified the concern as being a likely headline “Fraudster’s brother charged with murder”.

[4]      In support it is noted that a witness connected to the victim made the following statement about the defendant:

I also thought he was dodgy due to his family situation and past drug issues and I couldn’t understand why Mark was still driving his mother’s car QUENI.

I Googled Shaan STEVENS and saw that he had been convicted for fraud and still owed money yet Mark was driving his mother’s car.

I thought it seemed dodgy, as he and his mother had moved to Cambodia and if they owed money for fraud, the car and other belongings would have been taken to repay debts.

[5]      I am also advised Mr Shaan Stevens has been contacted overseas for comment on his brother’s situation.

[6]      Mrs Ablett-Kerr submits this illustrates the type of prejudice the defendant will face if his name is published.  Although a Judge will direct a jury to ignore such matters, there will be a year of this type of public linking prior to then.

[7]      The application is opposed.

1      The appeal confirming their  convictions and  sentences is  Rowley and Skinner v  R  [2015] NZCA 233.

Analysis

[8]      I accept a public link with his brother will be drawn once Mr Stevens’ name suppression is lifted.  It is not a link of any particular relevance, but it is a “curiosity” that will be identified.  It may for a while obtain prominence.

[9]      That said, it is very difficult to see there is any real risk of prejudice to a trial to be held in nine months time.  There is nothing in the alleged facts that involve

Mr Shaan  Stevens,  nor  is  there  anything  in  the  alleged  offending  that  involves dishonest conduct.  The defendant is alleged to have deliberately driven his car over his partner, thereby causing her death.  Notwithstanding the statement of one witness about a “dodgy” family, it is hard to see that anyone could see Mr Shaan Stevens’ actions as being applicable or relevant to his brother’s situation.

[10]     Further, if there were such a risk, it is a very easy matter to direct a jury on. The lack of any rational connection between the two would be readily appreciated by jurors who probably would be puzzled at why it is being raised.

[11]     The Crown suggest, and the defendant adopts as a fall-back position, that there could be limited suppression concerning the familial link.  I have decided out of an abundance of caution to accede to this.  I do so because:

(a)      the passage cited from the witness statement suggests some may draw a link between Mr Shaan Stevens’ “dodgy” conduct and the defendant;

(b)there is no compelling public interest in immediately identifying the family connection.  It is irrelevant to the charge.  The public interest factor in two brothers being in their respective situations is not pressing from a timing aspect. It will hold the same “value” after trial that it has now.

[12]     It is probable that the suppression order will not prevent keen researchers from identifying the link, but it will curtail its public dissemination in either digital or print form.

Decision

[13]     The application for name suppression until trial is declined.

[14]     I order that until final disposition of trial it is not permissible in the news media or otherwise to publish the familial link between the defendant and his brother

Mr Shaan  Stevens.   That  will  obviously extend  to  specifically identifying  other relatives. This order does not purport to extend to existing publicity such as to require any removal of dated posts but there is to be no fresh dissemination.

[15]   The same reasons that underlie that order mean this judgment must be suppressed until final disposition.

[16]     The application having been declined, I maintain suppression until 4.00 pm

Friday, 20 May 2016 to allow any appeal rights to be exercised.  If an appeal is filed then name suppression automatically continues until the appeal is resolved.

Simon France J