Sharma v Police - [2024] NZHC 3086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000451

CRI-2024-404-000452 [2024] NZHC 3086

BETWEEN
ROHINEET SHARMA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 October 2024

Appearances:

N Mani for Appellant

W Fotherby and A Afzaly for Respondent P Gillick for NZME

Judgment:

23 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Appeal against suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 October 2024 at 11.30 am,

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland

Copy to: NZME (P Gillick)

SHARMA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3086 [23 October 2024]

[1] Rohineet Sharma faces 11 charges of money laundering pursuant to s 243(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. A Judge-alone trial (JAT) has been scheduled for 1 July 2025.

[2] The matter before this Court is an appeal against Judge D A Bell’s “refusal to determine interim name suppression” on 20 August 2024.¹

Procedural background

[3] The procedural background to this matter is complicated to say the least. Mr Sharma was first before the Court on 7 December 2021. There have been numerous appearances before the Court following that first appearance. Mr Sharma initially did not seek or have name suppression.

[4] The issue of name suppression seems to have been raised first before Judge N R Dawson on 24 August 2023 when the media sought permission to take photographs.² Judge Dawson recorded that:
[1] He does not have name suppression. He may or may not have had publicity already. If there is publicity, people would no doubt recognise his name, those people who know him best and deal with him, and I do not see the addition of photos would make any difference. The application is granted.

[5] The application granted by Judge Dawson was an application by the media to take photographs. The Judge correctly noted that at that time, Mr Sharma did not have name suppression.

[6] However, the issue of name suppression has been referred to on a number of other appearances during the course of these proceedings in the District Court.

[7] Although Mr Sharma has a date for a JAT, on 20 May 2024, then counsel for Mr Sharma (not Mr Mani) and the Police had filed a joint memorandum in which it was confirmed Mr Sharma had accepted a “resolution proposal”. Full reparation of
$180,000–$220,000 was a condition of the proposal. The memorandum noted that Mr Sharma sought interim name suppression until sentencing.

¹ New Zealand Police v Sharma [2024] NZDC 20825.
² New Zealand Police v Sharma [2024] NZDC 16317.

[8] On 6 June 2024, Judge S Harrop noted that Mr Mani sought name suppression for Mr Sharma but ruled:
I decline that because Mr Nicholls says a judge has already declined it (Mr Mani did not know that).

[9] When the proceedings came before Judge Bell on 20 August 2024, there was again a discussion regarding name suppression. Judge Bell took the view that as…

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 [2024] NZHC 3086
Case: [2024] NZHC 3086
Decision Date: 23 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sharma v New Zealand Police, Rohineet Sharma appealed against the decision of Judge Bell, who refused to determine interim name suppression in relation to Sharma's charges of money laundering. The appeal was brought before the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. The primary issue for the Court was whether there was jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given that the appeal was formulated against a refusal to "determine" name suppression rather than a decision on suppression itself. The Court considered the procedural background of the case, noting that the issue of name suppression was first raised before Judge Dawson, who had effectively declined it when the media sought permission to take photographs. However, Sharma's counsel argued that the appeal should be treated as one against the refusal to make a suppression order, which the Court accepted.

The appeal hinged on whether the threshold for extreme hardship was met, a crucial element under section 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for name suppression. Sharma argued that publication of his name would cause extreme hardship due to its adverse impact on his business, Green Solar, and his mental health, citing suicidal thoughts and distress. The Court examined Sharma's submissions and evidence, including his affidavits and a letter from a medical practice, but found the evidence insufficient to meet the high threshold for extreme hardship. The Court concluded that the stress Sharma was experiencing arose primarily from the charges themselves, not from the prospect of publication. Additionally, the Court noted that Sharma's professional reputation was already compromised, and his business plans were speculative. Consequently, Sharma failed to demonstrate that publication would cause him extreme hardship.

The Court further considered the public interest in open justice, particularly in cases involving serious charges like money laundering. The seriousness of the allegations and the public's right to know the identity of those charged outweighed the potential adverse effects on Sharma. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the media to publish Sharma's name and the details of the charges he faces.

Orders