Solter v Police - [2018] NZHC 1124

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PENDING APPEAL. SEE PARA [42] OF THIS JUDGMENT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2017-425-000041 [2018] NZHC 1124

BETWEEN
WULF STEFFEN SOLTER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 May 2018

Appearances:

J U Mooney for the Appellant

R W Donnelly for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Background

[1] This is a judgment on an appeal against a refusal to grant name suppression in the District Court.

[2] Mr Solter is 37 years old. In July 2017, he had been in a relationship with the complainant for approximately 18 months. On the night of 5 July 2017, they had a disagreement. Mr Solter went to bed in their bedroom. The complainant slept on a couch in the lounge. In the morning, Mr Solter went into the lounge and there was another disagreement over what had happened the previous night. The complainant went into the bedroom and got under the blankets. Mr Solter went in and pulled the

SOLTER v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1124 [18 May 2018]

covers off. The complainant screamed back at Mr Solter. He ran at her across the bed and pressed his finger against her mouth forcefully. He yelled her. The victim grabbed his phone and threw it across the room. The victim then went to grab her phone. Mr Solter ripped it off her, put it near the fire hearth and stomped on it, breaking it. He then left the address in his vehicle.

[3] The victim, distressed, went to a neighbour’s address. Mr Solter returned to the home a short time later. He threw some items of hers out into the garden, damaging a few household effects and some of her make up.

[4] Mr Solter then went to the Police Station to get some advice. He was charged with common assault and wilful damage. Mr Solter pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 21 August 2017. Before then, he had replaced the complainant’s cell phone.

[5] The sentencing Judge said the victim, in her victim impact report, had made it clear their relationship was now over. She just wanted to get on with her life. The Judge acknowledged that she had been able to say she did not consider herself a victim and she was not scared for her safety. The Judge described the assault charge as being “at the lower end of gravity for that offending”. He referred to a psychologist’s report that Mr Solter had voluntarily and privately funded. He gave him credit for that and for the fact he was dealing with certain difficulties and making a serious effort to deal with his issues.

[6] The Judge convicted and sentenced Mr Solter to 12 months’ supervision with conditions to ensure he continued to receive counselling and addressed the issues he had. On the charge of intentional damage, he was convicted and sentenced to pay…

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 Solter v Police

Details

AGLC: Solter v Police [2018] NZHC 1124
Case: [2018] NZHC 1124
Decision Date: 18 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Solter v Police, Wulf Steffen Solter appealed against the District Court's refusal to grant him name suppression pending the outcome of his appeal. Mr Solter, who had pleaded guilty to common assault and wilful damage, sought suppression of his name and those of his company and business associate. The appeal hinged on whether the publication of Mr Solter's name would likely cause extreme or undue hardship to him or any person connected with him, under sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The legal issues included whether the hardship caused by publication would be disproportionate to the public interest in open justice and freedom of expression. The court had to assess whether the potential hardship to Mr Solter's business and associate was more than the usual embarrassment and criticism associated with criminal proceedings. The court considered the severity of Mr Solter's offending, his proactive steps to address his issues, and the potential impact of publication on his business prospects.

The High Court found that while Mr Solter's business associate and company could suffer undue hardship from publication, there was no real risk of such consequences occurring. The court determined that Mr Solter's offending was unrelated to his work and unlikely to unfairly cast suspicion on his business or associate. The court also noted that the public interest in open justice and freedom of expression outweighed the potential for undue hardship, as the reporting would not be unfair or unbalanced. The appeal was dismissed, and interim suppression would continue until the appeal was finally determined or until 13 June 2018.

Orders