Legal Research
Cases
Wedgewood v The Queen

Wedgewood v The Queen

Case [2020] NZHC 406 5 March 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-409-112

CRI-2019-409-113 [2020] NZHC 406

ASTON WEDGEWOOD

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 5 March 2020

Counsel:

No appearance for Appellant K South for Crown

Judgment:

5 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] The appellant appeals against a refusal of the District Court to grant final name suppression. He faced two separate sets of charges relevant to the issue of name suppression. Firstly, charges (which the appellant was found guilty of by a jury in 2017) of meeting a young person after grooming, supplying cannabis and committing an indecent act on a male aged 12-16 years. Secondly, the appellant was charged with providing allegedly forged documents to the Court, while the Court was hearing the appellant’s first charges.

[2] When this matter was called this morning, the appellant did not appear, neither did any counsel on his behalf. There is nothing unusual in that. The appellant has a

WEDGEWOOD v R [2020] NZHC 406 [5 March 2020]

long history of failing to meet Court deadlines and seeking last minute adjournments.1 There have already been a number of adjournments, at the appellant’s request, of the hearing of this appeal.

[3] On 7 November 2019, Simon France J granted what he said would be the last adjournment and warned the appellant that if he did not appear on the date set for the hearing, the matter will be resolved in his absence.2

[4] The appellant did not appear on 4 February 2020 but Dunningham J found that there may have been some confusion about the hearing date and adjourned the appeal “for one last time”.3

[5] The appellant did not appear today. He was paged throughout the Court building. I am satisfied that he was properly notified of the hearing. The hearing proceeded without him. I have had regard to the material on the Court file that has been provided by the appellant.

Background

Factual background

[6] The appellant had not originally received name suppression for the charges relating to the 2017 jury trial. However, interim suppression orders were granted to the appellant at the sentencing for these first charges, in order to protect his fair trial rights for the upcoming trial concerning the forgery charges.

[7] The trial and appeal process for the first charges was lengthy and delayed by a number of issues raised by the appellant. As a result, the Crown ultimately decided not to pursue the forgery charges, and instead withdrew them.

1      W v R [2019] NZCA 367 at [5]-[21].
2      Wedgwood v R CRI-2019-409-112 and CRI-2019-409-113 HC Christchurch 7 November 2019, minute of Simon France J at [3].
3      Wedgwood v R CRI 2019-409-112 and CRI-2019-409-113 HC Christchurch 4 February 2020, minute of Dunningham J at [1].

[8] The appellant then applied for final orders suppressing his name in relation to both the 2017 trial convictions and the withdrawn forgery charges. The matter was adjourned until 16 August 2019.…

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 Wedgewood v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wedgewood v The Queen [2020] NZHC 406
Case: [2020] NZHC 406
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wedgewood appeals against the District Court's refusal to grant him final name suppression in relation to charges of meeting a young person after grooming, supplying cannabis, and committing an indecent act on a male aged 12-16 years, and providing forged documents to the Court. The District Court Judge was uncertain of his jurisdiction to make a final suppression order, given that the Court of Appeal was already hearing an appeal against Wedgewood's 2017 jury trial convictions. The District Court Judge proceeded on the basis that he did have jurisdiction, but rejected Wedgewood's application for final name suppression, holding that publication of Wedgewood's name was not likely to cause him extreme hardship. Wedgewood's appeal to the High Court was heard without his appearance or counsel. The Court considered two issues: the jurisdictional issue and the merits of the name suppression application. The Court found that the District Court may have lacked jurisdiction to hear the name suppression application, in that it may have been functus officio at the time in which the case was decided (16 August 2019). As the Court of Appeal was seized of the issue at the time of the District Court hearing, the jurisdiction to grant name suppression may have shifted to the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, the High Court retains inherent powers to grant and decide name suppression, as observed in Siemer. Consequently, if the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the name suppression application, then the High Court may still exercise its inherent powers to make a decision on the merits of the two-step test set out in s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act. If the District Court did have jurisdiction, then the approach to appeal (which also requires an assessment of the two-step test) discussed above applies. Either way, the case fails on the merits. An analysis of the two-step test indicates that the appellant fails on the first step. The appellant's contention that publication of his name would be likely to cause extreme hardship is not satisfied here. The main evidence put forward by the appellant in favour of the "extreme hardship" argument are two s 38 reports and a letter from Dr Newburn. None of these provide sufficient evidence to indicate the likelihood of extreme hardship if publication occurs. The s 38 reports provided no recommendations (on the basis that the appellant appeared to be denying his offending) and while discussing the appellant's difficulties with his historic head injury, did not suggest that the appellant would be particularly pre-disposed or more likely to suffer hardship than the ordinary offender. Furthermore, although assessment of the second step is not necessary given that the appellant has failed on the first, it is likely that the public interest in publication would outweigh the appellant's interest here, given the nature and type of offending. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Orders