St Peter's College v The Queen - [2016] NZHC 925

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF ANY COMPLAINANT(S)/PERSON(S) UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS - AND INCLUDING THE COMPLAINANTS OVER 18 - WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

FURTHER INTERIM SUPPRESSION ORDERS PURSUANT TO S 205
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 AS DESCRIBED IN [44] OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT CONTINUE UNTIL 5.00 PM, 9 MAY 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2016-425-000006 [2016] NZHC 925

BETWEEN
ST PETER'S COLLEGE

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN Respondent

Hearing: 3 May 2016

Appearances:

E L McWatt for Appellant
M-J Thomas for Crown

Judgment:

6 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1] St Peter’s College is appealing the District Court’s decision declining an application for permanent name suppression of both the defendant and the school. The school’s boarding hostel was the employer of the defendant, Mr Wallace, who was convicted of supplying cannabis to persons under the age of 18 who were students at the school. Judge Farnan found that the undue hardship test was not met
under ss 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to warrant suppression

ST PETER'S COLLEGE v THE CROWN [2016] NZHC 925 [6 May 2016]

orders as sought. Furthermore, even if that test had been satisfied, the principles of open reporting counted against the granting of name suppression.1

[2] On appeal, the school again seeks the following orders:

(a) suppression of the defendant’s name and occupation;

(b)suppression of the school’s name, the school’s hostel’s name “St Peter’s College Hostel Limited” and any information which could lead to the identification of St Peter’s College and its involvement in this matter;

(c) suppression of the name, address and any information leading to the identification of the 10 student victims involved in the defendant’s offending; and

(d)suppression of information outlining the nature of the offending as it relates to the 10 student victims involved.2

[3] In appealing the decision, the school raises the following grounds for appeal:

(a) the District Court should have accepted that suppression of the victims’ addresses, for identification purposes, extended to their place of residence during the school term, namely the St Peter’s College Hostel;

(b)the District Court gave insufficient regard to the interests of the victims and the undue hardship they would likely suffer if the school’s name was published;

(c) the District Court also gave insufficient regard to the interests of all other students attending the school, particularly boarding students,

1 New Zealand Police v Wallace [2016] NZDC 1728.
2 Which counsel clarified was no more than suppression of any detail of the offending which might identify the victims in some way, and which, in my view, is covered by the existing suppression orders in relation to victims.

and the undue hardship they would likely suffer in the event the

school’s name was published;

(d)the District Court gave insufficient regard to the victims and the undue hardship they…

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 St Peter's College v The Queen 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: [2016] NZHC 925
Decision Date: 6 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Peter's College is appealing the District Court’s decision to deny a permanent name suppression order of both the defendant and the school, who employed the defendant. The defendant was convicted of supplying cannabis to students under the age of 18. The school sought suppression of the defendant's name, the school's name, the hostel's name, the victims' names, and details of the offending. The court must decide whether publication of the defendant's name and the school's name would cause undue hardship to the victims. The court found that publication would likely cause undue hardship to the victims, but the public interest in knowing the defendant's identity outweighed the hardship. The court also found that publication of the school's name would likely cause undue hardship, but the public interest in knowing the context of the offending outweighed the hardship. The court decided not to continue the suppression orders for the defendant or for the name of St Peter's College or the boarding hostel at the school, but deferred lifting of the interim suppression orders until 5.00 pm on Monday, 9 May 2016, to give the school time to advise the victims.

Orders