Singh v Police - [2016] NZHC 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-442-0029

[2016] NZHC 147

BETWEEN
HARINDER SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 February 2016

Appearances:

R Ord for the Appellant

S K O'Donoghue for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 February 2016 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Nelson.

SINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 147 [12 February 2016]

Introduction

[1]The appellant, Harinder Singh, faces a charge of indecent assault.1

[2] He appeals a ruling of a District Court Judge declining to grant interim name suppression until trial, on the grounds that publication would cause discrimination towards Sikhs in Nelson, would cast undue suspicion on others, and risk his rights to a fair trial.

[3]I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

Alleged facts and procedural history

[4] It is alleged that in March 2008, when the appellant was working as a taxi driver in Auckland, he indecently assaulted a female passenger.

[5] The appellant was charged and arrested on 1 May 2008. He was bailed, but then left New Zealand for India. It appears he considered the matter was over.2 He returned to New Zealand around seven years later and was arrested in Wellington. He pleaded guilty to breaching bail.

[6] He has not had name suppression from 2008 until this application, although the case does not seem to have attracted any publicity.

The law

[7] Name suppression is governed by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, primarily s 200, which provides:

200 Court may suppress identity of defendant

(1) A court may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of a person who is charged with, or convicted or acquitted of, an offence.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 135, maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.
2 The appellant had received a letter in 2008 from Legal Services saying, “your case has now finished”.

(2) The court may make an order under subsection (1) only if the court is satisfied that publication would be likely to—

(a) cause extreme hardship to the person charged with, or convicted of, or acquitted of the offence, or any person connected with that person; or

(b) cast suspicion on another person that may cause undue hardship to that person; or

(c) cause undue hardship to any victim of the offence; or

(d) create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; or

(e) endanger the safety of any person; or

(f) lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law; or

(g) prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences; or

(h) prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand.

[8] The section contemplates a two-stage test. First, it must be determined whether one of the grounds has been established.3 Only once one of these is made out…

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 Singh v Police

Details

AGLC: Singh v Police [2016] NZHC 147
Case: [2016] NZHC 147
Decision Date: 12 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harinder Singh, the appellant, appealed against a District Court ruling which declined to grant him interim name suppression until his trial. The alleged offence was an indecent assault that took place in March 2008. Singh was charged and arrested in May 2008, but he left New Zealand for India and did not return until around seven years later. He pleaded guilty to breaching bail. Singh sought name suppression on the basis that publication would cause discrimination against Sikhs in Nelson, cast undue suspicion on other Sikhs, and risk his rights to a fair trial. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient causative link between publication of his name and the claimed hardship, or that publication would likely cause undue hardship to others. The court noted that the appellant's submissions were speculative, and there was no evidence of discrimination against Sikhs facing criminal charges in the Nelson area. The court also held that publication would include the appellant's full name, not just the last name 'Singh', which should curb any suspicion and undue hardship on others. The court concluded that the principle of open justice and the public interest in a case involving allegations of sexual offending by a taxi driver outweighed the appellant's right to name suppression.

The legal issues in this case were whether the appellant had demonstrated that publication of his name would be likely to cause extreme or undue hardship, and whether the discretion to suppress should be exercised. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient causative link between publication of his name and the claimed hardship, or that publication would likely cause undue hardship to others. The court noted that the appellant's submissions were speculative, and there was no evidence of discrimination against Sikhs facing criminal charges in the Nelson area. The court also held that publication would include the appellant's full name, not just the last name 'Singh', which should curb any suspicion and undue hardship on others. The court concluded that the principle of open justice and the public interest in a case involving allegations of sexual offending by a taxi driver outweighed the appellant's right to name suppression.

Orders