Tilley v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-409-000041 [2017] NZHC 882

BETWEEN
VICTORIA ANNE TILLEY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 3 May 2017

Appearances:

J Lucas for Appellant
K South for Respondent

Judgment:

4 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] On 29 March 2017 the appellant, Victoria Anne Tilley, was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court to six months’ community detention, 250 hours of community work and ordered to pay reparation of $20,000 after pleading guilty on two representative charges of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.1

[2] Earlier, the appellant had been granted interim name suppression until sentencing. She applied for permanent name suppression at sentencing. This application was declined by Judge O’Driscoll in the District Court.

[3] The appellant now appeals against that refusal to grant permanent name suppression.

1 R v Tilley [2017] NZDC 6767.

TILLEY v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 882 [4 May 2017]

Background

[4] The appellant was employed by the victim, a building company, as an Office Manager. Whilst in that role, she defrauded the victim of over $20,000 over a period of over two years from December 2012 to February 2015. She was arrested and charged with a range of dishonesty offences. She subsequently entered a plea of guilty to two representative charges of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

[5] The appellant was granted interim name suppression when she first appeared in the District Court on the basis of what was said to be issues with her mental health and risks to her safety if her name was published. This order continued until sentencing.

[6] At final sentencing the appellant filed an affidavit outlining her issues of self harm with supporting medical information. It outlined the view that the appellant was at risk of self harm and that publication of her name would increase that risk.

District Court Decision

[7] On the issue of name suppression, Judge O’Driscoll began by traversing the relevant case law and acknowledging the medical material produced in support of the appellant’s request to grant permanent name suppression. His Honour noted:

[31] In support of suppression of name I have an affidavit which has been filed by you. In addition to the affidavit there is also a medical report from Dr Elizabeth Akin who as I understand it is your GP. She says that if the current name suppression was lifted she would anticipate a potential deterioration in your psychological health. She would definitely not recommend the lifting of name suppression due to her concern for your mental well-being and medical care.

[32] I also have a letter from Avril Hewett-Jones indicating that you have commenced counselling at the Petersgate Counselling Centre on 9 February
2017 and you have attended four sessions. The report indicates that you
continue to demonstrate and make reference to high levels of stress and that you would benefit from weekly counselling sessions already in place.

[33] I also have placed before me a letter…

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 Tilley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Tilley v The Queen [2017] NZHC 882
Case: [2017] NZHC 882
Decision Date: 4 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tilley v The Queen is an appeal by Victoria Anne Tilley against the Christchurch District Court's refusal to grant her permanent name suppression. Tilley had pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer of over $20,000 and was sentenced to six months' community detention, 250 hours of community work and ordered to pay reparation of $20,000. She had been granted interim name suppression, which was extended until sentencing. However, her application for permanent name suppression was declined by Judge O'Driscoll, who found that the public interest in knowing about the offending outweighed Tilley's personal interests.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court erred in refusing to grant permanent name suppression and whether the seriousness of the offending and the public interest in open justice justified the refusal. The court found that the District Court did not err in refusing to grant name suppression. The court found that while Tilley's risk of self-harm existed, it was properly mitigated by the strong support network and assistance available to her. The court also found that the seriousness of the offending and the importance of open justice principles justified the refusal.

The court found that the District Court properly considered the medical opinions adduced in support of Tilley's application for name suppression. The court found that Judge O'Driscoll was entitled, after considering the evidence before him, to refuse to exercise his discretion to grant name suppression. The court also found that Judge O'Driscoll did not err in taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the importance of open justice principles.

The appeal was dismissed, and permanent name suppression was declined. The interim suppression order made by Judge O'Driscoll on 29 March 2017 now lapses.

Orders