Robertson v Police - [2014] NZHC 1302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2014-412-000009 [2014] NZHC 1302

BETWEEN
LYNN ROBERTSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

AND

OTAGO DAILY TIMES Applicant

Hearing: 4 June 2014

Appearances:

J M Ablett-Kerr QC and G E Diamanti for Appellant
R P Bates for Respondent
W J Wright and J M Guthrie for Applicant, Otago Daily Times

Judgment:

10 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to three charges of theft by a person in a special relationship under ss 220 and 223 Crimes Act 1961. On 8 April
2014 she was sentenced to four months home detention and 200 hours community work. An application for final name suppression was declined by the District Court.

[2] The appellant now appeals against the refusal to grant name suppression. In her notice of appeal she relies on three grounds:

(a) That the District Court Judge failed to give adequate or sufficient weight to evidence that extreme hardship would be caused to the
appellant by publication of her name.

ROBERTSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1302 [10 June 2014]

(b)That the District Court Judge failed to give adequate or sufficient weight to evidence that extreme hardship would be caused to other persons connected to the appellant.

(c) That the District Court Judge misinterpreted the test in relation to s 200(2)(a) and (c) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 in relation to the appellant’s husband and children.

[3] Before me leave was sought on behalf of the appellant to amend the third ground of appeal to include subs (2)(e) and (f) and to include the words “and employers”. This leave was granted.

[4] The appellant’s essential submission is that while her particular circumstances might not possibly meet the test of extreme hardship, the combination of factors relating to her, her husband, her children and her employer justifies the making of an order for name suppression.

[5] The present appeal is opposed by the respondent. The Crown submits that the District Court had before it and had considered all relevant information on this issue of name suppression together with detailed submissions on the law and quite properly found that the relevant tests were not met.

The offending in question

[6] The nature and extent of the offending in question here in short involved:

(a) The theft by the appellant of $24,654.60 from the St Kilda Surf

Lifesaving Club by way of 31 fraudulent withdrawals;

(b)The theft by the appellant of $3000 from Musselburgh School PTA by presenting three unauthorised cash cheques; and

(c) Forty fraudulent withdrawals by the appellant from her mother’s bank

account amounting to $54,358.93.

[7] This offending involved significant breaches of trust on the part of the appellant and had a major impact on all the victims involved. It seems the appellant, who has accounting qualifications and continues to work in the accounting field had developed a major gambling addiction and dissipated the stolen money in her preoccupation with pokie machine gambling…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robertson v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 1302
Decision Date: 10 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns an application by the appellant, Lynn Robertson, for the suppression of her name in relation to criminal charges brought against her. The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to three charges of theft by a person in a special relationship. On 8 April 2014, she was sentenced to four months home detention and 200 hours community work. An application for final name suppression was declined by the District Court. The appellant appeals against the refusal to grant name suppression. The essential submission of the appellant is that while her particular circumstances might not possibly meet the test of extreme hardship, the combination of factors relating to her, her husband, her children, and her employer justifies the making of an order for name suppression. The appeal is opposed by the respondent, and the Crown submits that the District Court had before it and had considered all relevant information on this issue of name suppression together with detailed submissions on the law and quite properly found that the relevant tests were not met. The Court confirms the District Court decision refusing name suppression and dismisses the appeal.

Orders