Sua v Police - [2022] NZHC 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-323

[2022] NZHC 2723

BETWEEN
JEROME SUA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2022

Appearances:

F M J Coppell and A McIntyre for Appellant S E Arnerich for Respondent

Judgment:

20 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against refusal to grant interim name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 October 2022 at 12.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau

SUA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2723 [20 October 2022]

[1] Mr Sua faces a charge of injuring with intent to injure. He has denied the charge and elected trial by jury.

[2] On 22 August 2022, Judge N R Dawson refused an application by Mr Sua for interim name suppression until trial.1 Mr Sua appeals against the Judge’s decision.

The charge

[3] The charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred on 18 July 2022. On that date the police were speaking to Mr Sua regarding a family harm incident to which they had been called. They detained him for the purpose of serving a police safety order on him. Mr Sua broke free from the police and ran away. He was pursued by a female constable.

[4] As Mr Sua and the constable crossed Great South Road, Mr Sua allegedly stopped suddenly and turned towards the constable. He then allegedly punched the constable directly in the face with a closed fist. The force of the punch was sufficient to knock the constable unconscious. Other police officers arrested Mr Sua a few minutes later. At the time of his arrest the female constable was still lying on the road in an unconscious state.

[5] Not surprisingly, traffic in vicinity of the accident stopped as it occurred. An occupant of a nearby vehicle filmed the incident on her cellphone. The film footage has been played on social media and also in the mainstream news media. The Crown will undoubtedly play the footage to the jury at trial.

Relevant principles

[6] Suppression in this context is governed by s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act), which relevantly provides as follows:

1 Police v Sua [2022] NZDC 19152.

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.

(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…

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 Sua v Police

Details

AGLC: Sua v Police [2022] NZHC 2723
Case: [2022] NZHC 2723
Decision Date: 20 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jerome Sua appeals the decision of Judge N R Dawson to refuse his application for interim name suppression until trial. Sua faces a charge of injuring with intent to injure, an offence arising from an incident in which he allegedly punched a police constable, causing her to lose consciousness. Sua denies the charge and has elected trial by jury. The incident was filmed and the footage has been played on social media and in the mainstream news media. Sua's application for suppression is governed by s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which provides that a court may suppress the identity of a person charged with an offence if publication would be likely to cause certain types of harm. The Court must first determine whether any of the threshold requirements have been made out, and if so, balance the identified threshold interests against the need for transparency in criminal proceedings. Sua argues that suppression is necessary to avoid extreme hardship, to protect his future employment prospects, and to ensure a fair trial. The Court considers each ground in turn, concluding that none of them establish extreme hardship. Sua's concerns about social media and employment are speculative and unlikely to result in significant hardship. The Court also finds that publication of Sua's name will not prejudice his fair trial rights, as prospective jurors will not know they will be part of the jury panel until trial and will be subject to explicit directions from the trial Judge not to make their own enquiries online. The appeal against refusal to grant interim name suppression is dismissed.

Orders