R v Wright-Meldrum

[2023] NZHC 3148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-009-9721

[2023] NZHC 3148

THE KING

v

REBECCA ELIZABETH JANE WRIGHT-MELDRUM DAVID PETER HAWKEN

Hearing:

8 November 2023

Appearances:

P A Currie and M G McClenaghan for Crown

S M Grieve KC, P J Shamy and K M Barker for Defendant Wright-Meldrum

M A Stevens KC and D L Henderson for Defendant Hawken

Judgement:

9 November 2023

RULING NO. 1 OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1]    An application has been received on behalf of Stuff Ltd for permission to publish a photograph which was produced in evidence in this trial.

[2]    The photograph in question is photograph 62 in Exhibit 14, a booklet of photography  produced  in   evidence.   It   is   a   photograph   of   the   deceased,  Ms Angela Blackmoore, and one of the defendants, Ms Wright-Meldrum, taken at some time in the early mid-1990s and likely before Ms Blackmoore commenced her relationship with Mr Anderson at the beginning of 1995.

R v WRIGHT-MELDRUM [2023] NZHC 3148 [9 November 2023]

[3]    No party objected to publication of  this photograph,  save  for counsel  for Ms Wright-Meldrum. Ms Wright-Meldrum opposes on the grounds that she considers the photograph is irrelevant to any issues in the trial and has no evidential value. It is also an unwarranted invasion into her privacy which is already compromised by the criminal proceedings.

[4]    The jurisdictional basis for denying such a request is found in s 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. It provides as follows:

Court may suppress evidence and submissions

(1)A court may make an order forbidding publication of any report or account of the whole or any part of the evidence adduced or the submissions made in any proceeding in respect of an offence.

(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 any victim of the offence; 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 a 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.

[5]    It is clear from this section that there is a strong presumption in favour of the principle of open justice and there should be no restriction on the publication of evidence adduced in a criminal case except in special circumstances.

[6]    As with other orders for suppression made under ss 200 and 202, this section calls for a two-stage analysis. The first stage requires the Court to be satisfied that publication would lead to at least one of the outcomes listed in subs (2). If the Court is satisfied that such an outcome is likely, the Court must still exercise its discretion as to whether an order for bidding publication should be made, taking into account the principle of open justice, and the interests which the matters in subs (2) seek to protect.

[7]    In the present case, there has been no identification of any ground for suppressing the evidence which would fall within subs (2). In terms of any undue hardship to any victim of the offence, obviously members of Ms Blackmoore’s family fall within this category. However, other photographs of Ms Blackmoore have been published and this photograph is of a similar type, which humanises the deceased, and the Crown has raised no concerns about its publication. In these circumstances, there is no suggestion of undue hardship to any victim of the offence.

[8]    Hardship of any sort to the defendant is not a relevant consideration. The privacy of defendants is necessarily compromised to a high degree during a criminal trial, but that is an inevitable consequence of the principle of open justice in action. There is no suggestion that the photograph is misleading or prejudicial in any way to the defendant it depicts. Indeed, if it was so, it would not comprise part of the evidence for the trial.

[9]    While strictly speaking it is not necessary to consider the other matters raised by Mr Shamy once it is established that no grounds for declining publication under subs (2) are established, I also consider the photograph is relevant to an issue at trial, which is the friendship between Ms Wright-Meldrum and Ms Blackmoore. This is said by the Crown to be relevant to Ms Wright-Meldrum’s role in the alleged murder by assisting Mr Powell (who is convicted of the murder) to gain access to the house. Alternatively, of course, it is likely to be called  on as  making it improbable  that  Ms Wright-Meldrum would agree to assist in such an enterprise.

Result

[10]   Given there are no grounds for suppressing this evidence and noting both the desirability of open justice and the principle that the media have an important role in reporting trials as the eyes and ears of the public, I decline to forbid publication of this photograph and, instead, as advised in Court on 8 November 2023, confirmed that all news media entities present in Court are authorised to publish it.

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Copy to:

S M Grieve KC, Barrister, Christchurch P J Shamy, Barrister, Christchurch

K M Barker, Barrister, Queenstown A Stevens KC, Barrister, Dunedin D L Henderson, Barrister, Dunedin

Stuff Ltd RadioNZ

Television New Zealand Newshub