Stephens v R - [2021] NZHC 1902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000319

[2021] NZHC 1902

BETWEEN
KATHY STEPHENS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 20 July 2021

Appearances:

C M Hallaway for the Appellant

M Moon and P Patanasiri for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday 27 July 2021 at 12.00 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:………………………….

Solicitors:
Public Defender, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

Copies to:
S Hurley, The New Zealand Herald, Auckland C Owen, Stuff Limited, Auckland

STEPHENS v R [2021] NZHC 1902 [27 July 2021]

Introduction

[1] Ms Stephens appeals the decision of Judge E P Paul in the Auckland District Court declining continued interim name suppression.1 She faces charges of receiving property (over $1,000),2 possession of utensils for methamphetamine,3 and possession of methamphetamine.4 She has entered pleas of not guilty. The matters are scheduled to proceed to a jury trial on 14 February 2022.

[2]For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the appeal.

Jurisdiction

[3] Ms Stephens appeals as of right.5 As a general appeal, the appellant bears the onus to satisfy the appeal court that it should reach a different decision.6 The appeal court is entitled to give judgment in accordance with its own opinion even where that opinion is an assessment of fact and degree that entails a value judgment.

Background

[4]The facts of the alleged offending may be stated briefly.

[5] At around 6.00 pm on Saturday 17 October 2020, the head office of Trelise Cooper in Epsom was left locked and secured by staff. Between 6.00 pm on Saturday 17 October 2020 and 8.30 am on Monday 19 October 2020, a burglary occurred and approximately 2,000 items of clothing were stolen from the premises. The total value of those items is $887,612.

[6] At around 8.45 am on Tuesday 17 November 2020, Police conducted a search warrant at a house owned and occupied by the appellant. Numerous items of Trelise Cooper branded clothing were located throughout the address including two jackets hanging on the appellant’s bedroom door, a dress in the appellant’s walk-in wardrobe,

1      R v Bush [2021] NZDC 13299. Interim orders subsist pending the outcome of this appeal.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247: carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and/or a $500 fine.
4      Section 7(1)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine.
5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 283.
6      See Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141.

and a dress inside a washing basket in the hallway. In the appellant’s son’s room a suitcase full of such clothing was located. In the appellant’s vehicle parked in the garage, Police located a package addressed to an overseas address. Inside the package were numerous items of Trelise Cooper…

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 Stephens v R

Details

AGLC: Stephens v R [2021] NZHC 1902
Case: [2021] NZHC 1902
Decision Date: 27 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Kathy Stephens appealed the decision of the Auckland District Court, which declined her request for continued interim name suppression. Stephens faces charges of receiving property, possession of utensils for methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine. She has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for a jury trial in February 2022. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the threshold for extreme hardship or the risk of prejudice to a fair trial under section 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court further determined that even if the threshold were met, the principles of open justice weighed in favor of declining the suppression order. The High Court held that the public interest in the high-value burglary and the victim's opposition to the suppression order supported the District Court's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no further interim orders were sought.

Orders