Sharma v Police - [2025] NZHC 1178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-143 [2025] NZHC 1178

BETWEEN SUREN SHARMA
Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 12 May 2025

Counsel:D N Rawson for applicant P R McNabb for respondent
I A S S Ieremia for NZME Publishing Ltd as intervenor

Judgment: 15 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(appeal against refusal to grant identity suppression)

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 May 2025 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: MC, Auckland

SHARMA v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1178 [15 May 2025]

[1] The Crown alleges that, in the period from early 2022 to late 2023, Suren Sharma committed 11 offences of money laundering.1 It says he distributed more than $1,700,000, which had been transferred by the victims of online investment scams into bank accounts under his control, knowing of the risk that the transferred amounts were criminal proceeds, but unreasonably distributing them anyway. Mr Sharma’s trial, in the District Court at Auckland, is set to commence on 29 September 2025.

[2] By judgment dated 13 March 2025, Judge N Mathers declined to extend, until the conclusion of his trial, the interim identity suppression that Mr Sharma had previously been granted.2 Mr Sharma appeals Judge Mathers’ decision.

Principles

[3] When considering applications for identity suppression in criminal cases, the courts recognise the importance of free speech and openness in judicial proceedings by presuming that such applications should be rejected unless they meet a two-stage test. The first stage relates to whether the necessary statutory threshold has been met. If it has, the second stage requires the weighing of competing interests and the exercise of discretion.3

[4] An appeal against a refusal of identity suppression may require the appellate court: 4

(a)to re-evaluate whether the first stage threshold was met (if it were not thought to be met at first instance), considering the merits afresh and giving judgment in accordance with its own opinion; and/or

(b)to determine whether a first instance discretionary refusal of identity suppression at the second stage involved application of some wrong

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2      R v Sharma [2025] NZDC 4911.
3      Robertson v Police [2015] NZCA 7 at [39]–[46]; D (CA443/2015) v Police [2015] NZCA 541,
(2015) 27 CRNZ 614 at [9]–[12].
4      Parker v R [2020] NZCA 502 at [29]–[30]; citing Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141 at [16] and Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1 at [32].

principle, consideration of an irrelevant matter or oversight of a relevant one, or was plainly wrong.

Judge Mathers’ judgment

[5] Judge Mathers observed that statutory thresholds upon which Mr Sharma relied were those described in s 200(2)(a) and (d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which provide that:

The court may make an order under subsection (1) only…

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 Sharma v Police

Details

AGLC: Sharma v Police [2025] NZHC 1178
Case: [2025] NZHC 1178
Decision Date: 15 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Suren Sharma appeals against a decision by Judge N Mathers to refuse to extend an interim identity suppression order. The Crown alleges that Mr Sharma committed 11 offences of money laundering by distributing over $1,700,000, knowing of the risk that the transferred amounts were criminal proceeds. Mr Sharma's trial is set to commence on 29 September 2025. Mr Sharma argues that the statutory threshold for identity suppression has been met and, in the alternative, that the discretion to order identity suppression should have been exercised in his favour. The court must consider the statutory threshold, and if met, whether the discretion should have been exercised. The statutory threshold for identity suppression is set out in s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Mr Sharma relies on s 200(2)(a) and (d), arguing that publication would cause him extreme hardship or create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. Judge Mathers found that Mr Sharma’s concerns did not meet the threshold of “extreme hardship” and did not squarely address the real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. Mr Sharma argues that publication would cause him extreme hardship by risking his business, reputation, and livelihood. The court considers Mr Sharma’s assertions and submissions but is not persuaded that Judge Mathers was wrong. The court distinguishes Mr Sharma’s case from previous cases where identity suppression was granted due to the significant impact on the applicant’s reputation and business. The court concludes that Mr Sharma’s case does not establish a likelihood of extreme hardship. The court does not find it necessary to express a concluded opinion on the discretionary aspect, as the statutory threshold has not been met. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders