Legal Research
Cases
R v Wilson

R v Wilson

Case [2014] NZHC 32 3 February 2013

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

PERMANENT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF DETAILS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT EXCEPT WITH LEAVE OF THE COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-009-014082 [2014] NZHC 32

REGINA

v

ANGIE ROSE WILSON

Hearing: 11 December 2013
(Counsel given until 20 December 2013 to obtain victim's family's view on name suppression)

Counsel: P Currie for Crown
K H Cook for Prisoner

Judgment: 3 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Note: This is an anonymised version removing all reference to the psychological details as reported in the original judgment

[1] Ms Wilson was convicted of blackmail. She sent texts to a victim threatening to expose their (alleged) sexual relationship. The victim shortly after having discussed the texts with his de facto partner, committed suicide. Ms Wilson accepts that the blackmail was a contributing factor to his suicide. Ms Wilson, however, was not charged or convicted with any offending said to cause the death of the victim. At the conclusion of sentence I invited submissions on whether Ms Wilson’s name should be suppressed. Ultimately I considered that it was necessary to obtain an
expert assessment of Ms Wilson’s emotional health. After hearing from counsel I

R v WILSON [2014] NZHC 32 [3 February 2013]

reserved my decision given its significance to Ms Wilson, the victims of her crime and to the public generally.

[2] This judgment therefore concerns whether Ms Wilson’s name should be

permanently suppressed.

Facts

[3] The following is taken from my findings of fact for the purpose of sentence.

[4] In June 2012 the victim, A, met with Ms Wilson through his business selling chaff. Between June and August 2012 there were numerous text exchanges between them. On 25 August 2012 Ms Wilson sent a text to the victim stating “I need more money”. The victim replied “Sorry I cant help I got none”. Ms Wilson then threatened the victim by texting “try or I’ll just go round saying your paying for sex from a 17 yr old”. Ms Wilson sent another text to the victim “id txt back ae or Ill tell everyone ur a sick pedo and I have all the txts to proof it”.

[5] Later still the victim texted Ms Wilson “what u want frm me”.

[6] Ms Wilson replied “money I won’t tel anyone”. The victim replied “tel them what”. Ms Wilson replied “ur trying to get it on I have all the txts and u wont to pay for it im only 17 it will look bad”.

[7] Then on 26 August Ms Wilson sent another text to the victim stating “I wont money in my account by wed or ill tell everyone”. The victim did not respond and Ms Wilson followed up with “3k and don’t think I wont coz I will as soon as I tell my mum shit will hit the fan”.

[8] Between 26 and 28 August Ms Wilson continued to send text messages to the

victim threatening to expose his relationship with her to the victim’s partner.…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2014] NZHC 32
Case: [2014] NZHC 32
Decision Date: 3 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Angie Rose Wilson, was convicted of blackmail. The court was required to decide whether to permanently suppress Ms Wilson's name. The court considered the legal framework and relevant authorities for suppression of a defendant's name. The court also considered the views of the victim's family, who opposed suppression. The court then assessed whether publication of Ms Wilson's name would result in extreme hardship to her, and whether the presumption in favour of open reporting was displaced in the circumstances. The court found that while publication would likely cause Ms Wilson some distress and impair her rehabilitation, the scale of effect was not so severe or disproportionate to be said to be extreme hardship. The court also found that the nature of the blackmail offending demanded open justice, and relevantly, the affirmation of the right of the victim's family to speak freely about the circumstances of the victim's death. The court therefore decided that interim name suppression shall be lifted, but the details of Ms Wilson's psychological assessment shall be suppressed. The court also invited submissions on whether the details of Ms Wilson's psychological assessment should be suppressed.

Orders