Taylor v Witness C - [2018] NZHC 731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-004-7370

[2018] NZHC 731

BETWEEN
ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

Prosecutor

AND

WITNESS C

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

R Francois for Prosecutor

A Simperingham for Defendant R Thomson for Solicitor-General T C Goatley for media

Judgment:

20 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 April 2018 at 5.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

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

Solicitors: Amicus Law, Auckland
Woodward-Chrisp, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington
Bell Gully, Auckland

TAYLOR v WITNESS C [2018] NZHC 731 [20 April 2018]

[1] Witness C gave informant evidence at the trial of David Tamihere. He was given permanent name suppression. He was found guilty of perjury in relation to that evidence. In a judgment dated 26 October 2017, I revoked the permanent name suppression order.1 However, I granted Witness C interim name suppression until final disposition of his appeal against conviction for perjury.2

[2] Witness C has now abandoned his appeal against conviction. A memorandum of counsel for the media3 dated 17 April 2018 requested confirmation that because of the abandonment, the interim name suppression order has lapsed.

[3] Given the significance of the issue, I sought submissions from the affected parties and convened a telephone conference. I record the position of the parties as follows.

[4] Mr Simperingham, counsel for Witness C, indicated that because the appeal against conviction has been abandoned, it would be appropriate for the interim name suppression order to lapse. The Solicitor-General agrees.

[5] Mr Francois, counsel for Mr Taylor, however, submits that the Court of Appeal is now seized of the suppression issue because of Mr Taylor’s appeal against my interim suppression order. He says, based on discourse with the Judges of that Court, it may be that I did not in fact revoke the permanent suppression order and as such the appellate Court may wish to resolve that issue. While maintaining that I did in fact revoke the permanent order, he submits that I should await the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision. He emphasised that the Court may address matters of considerable importance as it relates to name suppression of informers.

[6] Ms Goatley, for the media, clarified, by reference to a minute of the Court of Appeal, that there was no appeal against my decision to revoke the permanent name suppression and so the appeal did not present a barrier to any decision by me to confirm that interim suppression had lapsed. Ms Thompson, for the Solicitor-General,

1 Taylor v Witness C [2017] NZHC 2615.
2 At [18].
3 They comprise NZME Publishing Limited, Fairfax New Zealand Limited, MediaWorks TV Limited, and Radio New Zealand Limited.

agreed that there was no barrier, though on a slightly different basis. Ms Thompson submitted that my interim order operated as a stay on the revocation order, rather than an order for interim suppression per se.…

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 Taylor v Witness C 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: [2018] NZHC 731
Decision Date: 20 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of Taylor v Witness C was heard on the papers. The central issue was the status of the interim name suppression order for Witness C, who had been found guilty of perjury after giving informant evidence at the trial of David Tamihere. The court had previously revoked a permanent name suppression order for Witness C but granted an interim order until the final disposition of his appeal against the perjury conviction. With the appeal now abandoned, the media sought confirmation that the interim suppression order had lapsed. The prosecutor argued that the Court of Appeal was considering the suppression issue, but the court clarified that no appeal against the revocation of the permanent suppression order was pending.

The court needed to determine whether the interim suppression order had indeed lapsed due to the abandonment of the appeal against conviction and if it should await the outcome of the Court of Appeal's decision on the prosecutor's appeal against the interim suppression order. The court heard submissions from the prosecutor, Witness C, the Solicitor-General, and the media. The media and the Solicitor-General argued that the interim suppression order had lapsed, while the prosecutor suggested awaiting the Court of Appeal's decision.

The court found the prosecutor's submission perplexing as the appeal against the interim suppression order had become redundant with the abandonment of the appeal against conviction. The court noted that deferring a decision would abdicate its duty to clarify the suppression order's status. The court proposed deferring a final decision to allow the prosecutor to seek directions from the Court of Appeal regarding the status of the appeal and any other appropriate directions. The court also directed a further telephone conference to resolve the issue promptly and ensure clarity regarding the suppression order's status.

The court concluded that the interim suppression order remained in place until further order by either the High Court or the Court of Appeal, but the current lack of clarity needed to be remedied as soon as possible. A further telephone conference was to be convened to address the issue.

Orders