The King v Joseph James Brider - [2022] NZHC 3579

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OF CONNECTED PERSON AND RELATED ENTITIES.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-009-580

[2022] NZHC 3579

THE KING

v

JOSEPH JAMES BRIDER

Hearing: 2 December 2022

Appearances:

L C Preston KC for Applicant – […] C J Boshier for Crown

M van Beynen – In Person for Stuff Ltd

Judgment:

21 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

[As to Final Name Suppression Order of Connected Person] [REDACTED FOR PUBLICATION]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 December 2022 at 1.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

[1] Mr Brider has pleaded guilty to charge of murder, abduction for sexual connection and breaching release conditions. He was to be sentenced on 2 December 2022. Due to the unavailability of his counsel, that sentencing has now been deferred to 1 February 2023.

R v BRIDER [2022] NZHC 3579 [21 December 2022]

[2] Mr Brider murdered his neighbour, Juliana Bonilla-Herrera. At the time of this offence, Mr Brider was living in a property owned by the applicant, the […]. He was also employed by a labour hire social enterprise entity related to […].

[3] […] is a […] entity. It delivers multiple wraparound support services […]. Its services extend to the provision of […] and to a […] operated in a joint venture with the […].

[4] In a judgment dated 1 March 2022, Doogue J made an interim order prohibiting publication of details that might lead to identification of the […] and five associated entities.1

[5] Ms Preston KC, on behalf of […], seeks final suppression orders. Senior Stuff journalist, Mr van Beynen, on behalf of Stuff Ltd, opposes final suppression of name.

[6] Mr Rapley KC acts for Mr Brider. He did not seek to be heard on the final suppression application but has indicated a neutral position. Ms Boshier, on behalf of the Crown, appeared on the application. The Crown takes a neutral position as to final suppression.

The law

[7] Pursuant to s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act), the Court may suppress the identity of witnesses, victims and connected persons. Section 202 provides:

202 Court may suppress identity of witnesses, victims, and connected persons

(1)A court that is hearing a proceeding in respect of an offence may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of any person who—

(a)is called as a witness; or

(b)is a victim of the offence; or

1 R v Brider [2022] NZHC 322.

(c)is connected with the proceedings, or is connected with the person who is accused of, or convicted of, or acquitted of the 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 undue hardship to the witness, victim, or connected person; or

(b)create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; or

(c)endanger the…

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 The King v Joseph James Brider 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: [2022] NZHC 3579
Decision Date: 21 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the New Zealand High Court was a request by the applicant, who was a social enterprise entity, to permanently suppress its name and the names of five associated entities. This suppression was sought following the conviction of Joseph James Brider for murder, abduction for sexual connection, and breaching release conditions. The applicant argued that publication of its name would cause undue hardship, as it relied on the community's trust and financial contributions. The media organisation, Stuff Ltd, opposed the suppression, arguing that the public had a right to know about entities connected to serious crimes. The Court was required to decide whether the applicant met the threshold criteria for suppression under s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and, if so, whether it should exercise its discretion to prohibit publication.

The Court found that the applicant met the threshold criteria for suppression, as publication would likely cause undue hardship. The Court was satisfied that the applicant's reputation and financial stability would be significantly impacted by association with the offending. The Court also found that the public interest in open reporting was not as strong as the potential harm to the applicant. The Court exercised its discretion to make a final order prohibiting publication of the applicant's name and any details likely to lead to its identification.

The Court made a final order prohibiting publication of the name and any details likely to lead to the identification of the applicant and its associated entities. This order was made pursuant to s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which allows the Court to suppress the identity of witnesses, victims, and connected persons in certain circumstances. The Court found that the threshold criteria for suppression had been met and that the exercise of its discretion was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court noted that the public interest in open reporting was satisfied by the publication of the offender's details and the processes engaged that led to his release from prison. The Court also noted that there was no material before it to suggest that the applicant or its associated entities acted in a manner that might warrant criticism relevant to the offending.

Orders