Taylor v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 2188

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST: SEE [2]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-190

[2022] NZHC 2188

BETWEEN
JEMMA TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 22 August 2022

Appearances:

M Dyhrberg QC and J J Jackson for Appellant S Murphy for Respondent

R Reed QC for St Cuthbert’s School

Judgment:

31 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against refusal to grant interim name suppression

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 August 2022 at 2. pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

TAYLOR v R [2022] NZHC 2188 [31 August 2022]

[1] Ms Taylor faces three charges of sexual conduct with a child under the age of 12 years.1 She has denied the charges and elected trial by jury in the District Court.

[2] On 3 June 2022, Judge E M Thomas declined an application by Ms Taylor for an order suppressing her name and identifying particulars until verdict.2 Ms Taylor has a 12 year old son, N. The Judge also declined Ms Taylor’s application for suppression of N’s name and identifying particulars. In addition, the Judge dismissed an application by Ms Taylor for suppression of the name of the school at which she was working when the complainant made her allegations. However, he made an order by consent suppressing from publication the fact that [redacted].3 That order remains in force.

[3]Ms Taylor appeals against all other aspects of the Judge’s decision.

The alleged offending

[4] The charges were laid as a result of offending that allegedly occurred in April 2012. At that time Ms Taylor was in a relationship with the complainant’s father. On 8 April 2012 she was at her former partner’s address, celebrating his birthday. The complainant, then 11 years of age, alleges that Ms Taylor entered her bedroom and indecently assaulted her in different ways on three occasions throughout the evening. However, the complainant did not make her allegations against Ms Taylor until early 2022. Ms Taylor was working at the school as a senior communications manager when that occurred.

[5] The school has entered an appearance on the appeal as an interested party. If Ms Taylor and/or her son are granted suppression, the school nevertheless seeks an order that its name not be suppressed. It wishes to communicate with parents, staff and students to reassure them that the charges are historic and relate to activity that allegedly occurred before the person charged began working at the school. It also wishes to confirm that this person is no longer working at the school.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3).
2 R v Taylor [2022] NZDC 10337.
3 At [16].

Jurisdiction

[6] Suppression in this context is governed by ss 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which relevantly provide as follows:

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,…

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 Taylor v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 2188
Case: [2022] NZHC 2188
Decision Date: 31 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from Jemma Taylor against the refusal of the District Court to grant interim name suppression orders in relation to three charges of sexual conduct with a child under 12 years of age. The District Court had declined to suppress Ms Taylor's name and identifying particulars, the name of her 12-year-old son, and the name of the school where she worked at the time the alleged offending occurred. The High Court was required to determine whether the District Court erred in law in refusing to grant suppression orders. The Court examined whether the District Court had correctly applied the statutory provisions governing suppression and whether the District Court had properly balanced the interests of transparency in criminal proceedings against the threshold interests identified by Ms Taylor. The Court found that the District Court had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had properly balanced the interests in question. The Court found that Ms Taylor would not suffer extreme hardship if her name was published, and that there was no appreciable risk that her son would suffer undue hardship if his name was published. The Court also found that publication of Ms Taylor's name was not likely to lead to the identification of the complainant. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders