The King v Ian William Dallison

[2022] NZHC 2968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-009-5239

[2022] NZHC 2968

THE KING

v

IAN WILLIAM DALLISON

Hearing:

10 November 2022

Counsel:

G J Burston and M Story for Crown K Beaton KC for Defendant

M van Beynen for Stuff Ltd

Judgment:

11 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Application for continuing name suppression]

R v DALLISON [2022] NZHC 2968 [11 November 2022]

Introduction

[1]                 Mr Dallison is charged with a number of serious offences.1 He seeks continued suppression of the personal details of his partner, a sitting District Court Judge, on the grounds that publication of their relationship would create a risk to his safety while he is in prison.

Procedural history

[2]                 Mr Dallison has been remanded in custody since his arrest on 4 August 2022. He has entered not guilty pleas to the most serious charges and awaits a trial in early 2024. Initially he was granted interim name suppression in the District Court. At his second appearance before Judge Davidson on 19 August 2022, Mr Dallison did not seek to renew suppression of his own name, but obtained an order “prohibiting publication of the name, address, occupation and any other details that may lead to the identification of Judge Farish as a person connected to the defendant”.2 The Judge concluded:3

Detective Sergeant Holden, the officer in charge of this particular inquiry, reports as follows:

Police do not oppose the application to have her relationship with Dallison suppressed. One of the grounds for that is the risk to Dallison from other prisoners if they find out he is a judge’s partner. The police have grave concerns for his safety if this becomes general knowledge in the prison population.

As is well known, the judge is a full-time judge predominately undertaking criminal work in the Christchurch area. She has been a judge for many years and prior to that, for a similar period, was a Crown prosecutor in Christchurch. It is highly likely, if not inevitable, that during that period she will have interacted with prisoners, some of whom may currently be in custody, and not all of whom may have had what they regard as favourable outcomes.

In my view, the application is entirely appropriate. The requisite grounds of endangering the safety of the defendant are made out.

1      Aggravated burglary under s 232(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961, attempted murder under s 173 of the Crimes Act, discharging firearm with intent to do grievous bodily harm (in the alternative) under s 198(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 188(1) of the Crimes Act, unlawful possession of a pistol (a representative charge) under  s 50(1)(a)  of   the  Arms  Act   1983,   unlawful   possession   of   a   restricted   weapon (a representative charge) under s 50(1)(b) of the Arms Act, and unlawful possession of a prohibited magazine (a representative charge) under s 50B of the Arms Act.

2      Police v…