R v Warren - [2016] NZHC 1728

THE LIFTING OF THE INTERIM SUPPRESSION ORDERS GRANTED BY JUDGE ROLLO ON 10 MARCH 2016 WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL
4:00 PM ON FRIDAY, 29 JULY 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-087-335 [2016] NZHC 1728

THE QUEEN

v

RHYS RICHARD NGAHIWI WARREN

Hearing: 13 July 2016

Counsel:

A J Pollett for Crown
R K P Stewart for Fairfax Media and NZME Publications

Judgment:

28 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 July 2016 at 10:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Crown
Izard Weston (Wellington) for Fairfax Media and NZME Publications

R v WARREN [2016] NZHC 1728 [28 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Warren faces two charges of attempted murder and five charges of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer. All five complainants are police officers. All have interim name suppression (granted in the District Court on 10 March 2016) enuring to the date of trial.

[2] Fairfax New Zealand Ltd and NZME Publications Ltd (“the applicants”) apply to have the interim name suppression orders revoked.1 This judgment determines their application.

Background

[3] I do not need to go into the factual background in detail. It is sufficient to note that in the course of a Police operation, Mr Warren discharged firearms at police officers. Of the five complainants, four were wounded.

[4] The interim suppression orders were made by Judge Rollo. He did not give reasons. However, a suppression order may be reviewed and varied at any time.2 I will consider the matter afresh.

[5] My jurisdiction is conferred by s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which provides:

202Court may suppress identity of witnesses, victims, and connected persons

(1) A court that is hearing a proceeding in respect of an offence may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of any person who—

(a) is called as a witness; or

(b) is a victim of the offence; or

(c) is connected with the proceedings, or is connected with the person who is accused of, or convicted of, or acquitted of the offence.

1 They have standing to make the application pursuant to s 210 Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 208(3).

(2) The court may make an order under subsection (1) only if the court is satisfied that publication would be likely to—

(a) cause undue hardship to the witness, victim, or connected person; or

(b) create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; or

(c) endanger the safety of any person; or

(d) lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law; or

(e) prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences; or

(f) prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand.

(3) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the court has made an order under section 200 suppressing the…

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 Warren

Details

AGLC: R v Warren [2016] NZHC 1728
Case: [2016] NZHC 1728
Decision Date: 28 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr Rhys Richard Ngahiiwi Warren faces multiple charges of attempted murder and using a firearm against law enforcement officers. The complainants, all police officers who were wounded in the incident, had previously been granted interim name suppression orders by Judge Rollo. Fairfax New Zealand Ltd and NZME Publications Ltd have applied to have these suppression orders revoked. The primary issue before the court was whether the publication of the complainants' names would likely cause them undue hardship. Brewer J considered the concerns of the complainants, including the impact of media scrutiny on their recovery and safety in the line of duty. The court found that while the complainants' concerns were genuine, they were not disproportionate to the hardship typically faced by complainants in similar situations. The court also noted the legitimate public interest in the open reporting of court proceedings, particularly when police officers are involved. As a result, the court granted the application to lift the suppression orders, with the lifting not taking effect until 4:00 pm on Friday, 29 July 2016.

Orders