Legal Research
Cases
Wilson v R

Wilson v R

Case [2018] NZHC 1778 18 July 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THIS JUDGMENT UNTIL

2.00 PM ON THURSDAY 19 JULY 2018.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR OCCUPATIONS OF VICTIMS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2018-442-000008

[2018] NZHC 1778

BETWEEN
SAMUEL JOHN SIMPSON WILSON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 17 July 2018 (via AVL at Wellington)

Counsel:

A J D Bamford for Appellant J M Webber for Respondent

Judgment:

18 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] This judgment explains why I am dismissing Dr Wilson’s appeal from a decision in which Judge Ruth denied Dr Wilson’s application for name suppression.

WILSON v R [2018] NZHC 1778 [18 July 2018]

[2]I am dismissing Dr Wilson’s appeal because:

(1)he has failed to satisfy any of the threshold criteria for name suppression set out in s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act)1; and

(2)he has not demonstrated that Judge Ruth erred when exercising his discretion to decline the application.

Background

[3] On 8 April 2015, Dr Wilson appeared for the first time in the District Court at Nelson in relation to eight charges of making an intimate visual recording (the charges).2 The charges state the offending took place between 1 June 2012 and 14 August 2014. On 19 January 2018, Dr Wilson pleaded guilty to the charges. He was sentenced to seven months’ home detention by Judge Ruth in the District Court at Nelson on 24 May 2018.3 Prior to sentencing, Dr Wilson had the benefit of interim name suppression, however, Judge Ruth declined Dr Wilson’s application for continued name suppression.

[4] Dr Wilson’s offending involved him obtaining a miniature recording device and placing it in the bathroom of his home and in a women’s changing room/toilet at Nelson Hospital. Using that device, Dr Wilson covertly recorded two female visitors using a toilet at his home where the recording device had been hidden. He also recorded nine women using the changing room and toilet at the hospital. On another occasion, Dr Wilson used the recording device to film up a colleague’s skirt when he was sitting next to her.

[5] The victim impact statements explain how many of the women have suffered stress and anxiety over Dr Wilson’s behaviour. The victims have said how they felt dehumanised and angry over the breach of trust inherent in Dr Wilson’s offending.

1      I explain the relevant provisions of the Act at [10]-[12].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 216H; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Wilson [2018] NZDC 10372.

[6] Eight of Dr Wilson’s victims oppose his continued name suppression. They cite amongst other reasons the inappropriateness of him obtaining permanent name suppression when he violated their dignity and privacy. Two of Dr Wilson’s victims do not oppose his continued name suppression.

[7] Orders were made in the District Court prohibiting the publication of the names and anything that could identify the victims…

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 Wilson v R

Details

AGLC: Wilson v R [2018] NZHC 1778
Case: [2018] NZHC 1778
Decision Date: 18 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wilson v R, Dr. Samuel John Simpson Wilson appealed the District Court's decision to deny his application for name suppression, which was dismissed by Collins J in the High Court of New Zealand. Dr. Wilson was convicted of making intimate visual recordings of women using toilets at his home and Nelson Hospital, and he sought to keep his identity suppressed permanently. The High Court was required to decide whether the District Court's decision was correct, and whether Dr. Wilson's appeal satisfied the threshold criteria for name suppression set out in s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Collins J dismissed Dr. Wilson's appeal because he failed to satisfy any of the threshold criteria for name suppression, and did not demonstrate that the District Court judge erred when exercising his discretion to decline the application. Firstly, Dr. Wilson did not satisfy the threshold criteria for name suppression because there was little realistic prospect that publishing his name would lead to the identification of the victims. Secondly, although Dr. Wilson's fragile mental health was a concern, the evidence before the court did not support the argument that publishing his name would endanger him. Thirdly, the distress and anxiety that publishing Dr. Wilson's name would cause him, his children, and his wife fell well short of the threshold of extreme hardship set out in s 200(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, even if any of the threshold criteria in s 200(2) of the Act had been satisfied, there was no basis for concluding that the District Court judge erred when exercising his discretion against continued name suppression.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders made by the District Court were amended to permit publication of the name of the hospital where most of the offending took place. The decision will take effect from 2.00 pm on 19 July 2018, to provide Dr. Wilson's wife and children with an opportunity to prepare for likely publicity.

Orders