R v Tarapata - [2017] NZHC 3209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2014-055-001496

[2017] NZHC 3209

THE QUEEN

v

ZARN TARAPATA

Hearing: 30 October 2017

Appearances:

Richard Marchant and Kristy Li for the Crown Jonathan Krebs and Julia Spelman for the Applicant

Tania Goatley and Kristin Wilson for the Respondent Media (Fairfax, MediaWorks, TVNZ, NZME, Radio New Zealand, AAP)

Ben Upton and Kent Teague for Google New Zealand Limited

Judgment:

19 December 2017

[REASONS] JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

[Take-down orders]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 December 2017 at 10:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

R v TARAPATA [2017] NZHC 3209 [19 December 2017]

Introduction

[1] In 2015 Mr Tarapata was tried on two charges of murder. His conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal and a new trial ordered.

[2] The first trial was reported in the media, relatively extensively, and those reports published and retained on the internet.

[3] Shortly before Mr Tarapata’s re-trial his counsel, Mr Krebs, applied for extensive suppression orders, including orders requiring nominated media organisations to forthwith remove from their websites references to Mr Tarapata’s first trial, including all content and electronic links.

[4] He did so on the grounds that if any members of the jury at Mr Tarapata’s second trial undertook an internet search they would discover detail regarding his first trial which was highly prejudicial and would compromise his common law and statutory rights to a fair trial.

[5] Given the imminence of the start of the trial I made without notice interim orders but granted leave to those media organisations which were served (“the respondent media”) to apply to revoke the orders.

[6]The respondent media filed notices of opposition and affidavit evidence.

[7] In the course of the trial I heard oral submissions from all parties. I determined the interim orders should not be continued and rescinded them. My reasons follow.

Background

Facts and issues

[8] Mr Tarapata was charged with the murder of Mr Fanning and Mr Matthews on 19 July 2014.

[9] The essential facts were not in contest. On 19 July 2014 Tarapata entered a pawn shop on Great South Road, Takanini where his partner worked. He attacked his

victims using at least one knife and stabbed both men to death. He then left the address with his partner and drove to the Avondale Race Course where he buried one of the murder weapons and, it is likely, discarded some of his clothing.

[10] After continuing northwest he turned south, driving with his partner to her parents’ home in Papakura where they picked up the couple’s two children before continuing south to Mr Tarapata’s parents’ home in Huntly. Shortly after arriving there Mr Tarapata drove to the Police station where he gave himself up.

[11] At both trials it was accepted Mr Tarapata’s motive for killing the two men was that he believed they were having a sexual relationship…

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 Tarapata

Details

AGLC: R v Tarapata [2017] NZHC 3209
Case: [2017] NZHC 3209
Decision Date: 19 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tarapata involved Zarn Tarapata, who was convicted of the murders of Mr Fanning and Mr Matthews. Tarapata's conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal, leading to a retrial. Prior to the retrial, Tarapata's counsel sought extensive suppression orders, including orders requiring media organisations to remove online references to Tarapata's first trial to protect his right to a fair trial. The court granted interim orders but allowed the media to apply to revoke them. The media opposed the orders, arguing they were unnecessary and an unreasonable limitation on their right to freedom of expression. The court rescinded the orders, finding that there was not a real risk that jurors would ignore the judge's directions not to conduct their own internet searches. The court also found that the orders would have significant and oppressive consequences for the media, including the permanent deletion of historical content and the difficulty of ensuring compliance by search engine providers. The interim orders were revoked, and the media were given the opportunity to seek costs.

Orders