R v T

[2013] NZHC 2601

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 200(2)(A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ACCUSED IS PROHIBITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-15479 [2013] NZHC 2601

THE QUEEN

v

T

Hearing:

30 September - 4 October 2013

Appearances:

S L McColgan for Crown

C F L Godinet for Defendant T

Judgment:

4 October 2013

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

Solicitors:             Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: C F L Godinet, Auckland

R v T [2013] NZHC 2601 [4 October 2013]

[1] On 30 September 2013 I granted T’s application for an order forbidding publication of his name pending further order of the Court. I said that the reasons for my decision would follow, as they now do.

[2] T’s application is contained in a memorandum of his counsel, Mr Godinet, dated 25 September 2013. The order is sought on the basis that publication of T’s name would be likely to cause extreme hardship to him, because of his youth.[1] There is no affidavit in support of the application, which there should be.  That said, I decided that there was sufficient information contained on the court file for me to make the order sought.

[1] Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200(2)(a).

[3]     The starting point when considering an application for name suppression is, of course, the presumption of openness. The considerations raised by T’s age in the context of this proceeding are to be weighed against that presumption.

[4]      Those considerations are these.

[5] First, T faces charges that are serious but not at the most extreme end of the scale. Together with two others, he is on trial in the High Court on five counts, comprising one of assault, one of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, and three of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The offending is alleged to have occurred in August 2012, when T was 16 years old.  He is now aged

17. The trial is expected to last for two weeks.

[6] Secondly, T would have had the benefit of name suppression had he been tried in the Youth Court. As it transpired, the Youth Court declined jurisdiction, but the fact that T would otherwise have had suppression remains relevant.[2]

[2] R v M [2011] NZCA 673.

[7] Thirdly, the trial is likely to put T under pressure. It is apparent from the Court file that he lacks support from immediate family. Accordingly, he does not have the benefit of the guidance and comfort that other defendants enjoy. I expect that the trial, at about two weeks, is lengthy by T’s standards and there are more than 25 Crown witnesses.

[8]    Fourthly, T will have to give instructions to counsel throughout the trial and he may have to decide whether to give evidence. It is most important that he be able to do so without the further pressure or stress that might arise from publicity.

[9]  For those reasons, I have considered it necessary to make the order sought. The order is to continue pending further order of the Court.

..................................................................

M Peters J