X v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 2481

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PROHIBITED BY S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-463-000066

[2018] NZHC 2481

BETWEEN
X

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

First Respondent

STUFF LIMITED and NZME PUBLICATIONS LIMITED

Second Respondents

Hearing: 29 August 2018

Appearances:

W Lawson for Appellant

H J Sheridan for First Respondent
R K P Stewart for Second Respondents

Judgment:

21 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 21 September 2018 at 11.30 am
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date………………………

X v R [2018] NZHC 2481 [21 September 2018]

Introduction

[1] Ms X, a police officer, is facing charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and forgery. She denies the charges and will stand trial in June 2019. In the meantime, she has been stood down from her role in the police force.

[2] Ms X applied unsuccessfully for name suppression pending trial, though the District Court Judge granted name suppression for a very limited period following the birth of her baby. The Judge was not satisfied that any of the statutory grounds relied on (extreme hardship, risk to fair trial rights and risk to the maintenance of law) had been made out. He granted limited name suppression against the possibility that all the relevant information about Ms X’s health was not clearly before the Court. Ms X says that the Judge erred in his assessment that none of the statutory grounds were made out and says that the Judge should have granted name suppression until the conclusion of the trial.

[3] The Crown takes a neutral position. Stuff Ltd and NZME Publications Ltd oppose name suppression and have been joined as respondents for the purposes of the appeal.

[4] I indicate now that I will allow the application and suppress all identifying details relating to Ms X until trial. As a result, this judgment describes aspects of the case and of Ms X’s circumstances in broad terms only.

Further evidence

[5] Ms X seeks leave to file four further affidavits in support of the appeal. The admission of new evidence on appeal against a refusal to grant a suppression order may be allowed by the Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction.1 Such evidence should be credible, fresh in the sense that it could not have been obtained at the first instance hearing with due diligence, and cogent.2

1 B v Housing NZ Corporation [2016] NZHC 974.
2 Lundy v R [2013] UKPC 28, [2014] 2 NZLR 273 AT [117]–[120].

[6] The first affidavit is an updating affidavit by Ms X herself and no objection is taken to it.

[7] The second is an affidavit from Ms X’s midwife. It is also said to be an updating affidavit. Stuff/NZME oppose the admission of that affidavit on the grounds that…

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 X v The Queen

Details

AGLC: X v The Queen [2018] NZHC 2481
Case: [2018] NZHC 2481
Decision Date: 21 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of X v The Queen involves a police officer, Ms X, who is charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and forgery. Ms X has denied the charges and is scheduled for trial in June 2019. Due to the charges, Ms X has been stood down from her role in the police force. Ms X sought a name suppression order to prevent the publication of her identity, which was initially denied by the District Court. However, the District Court granted a limited name suppression order following the birth of her child, but this was subsequently lifted. Ms X appealed this decision, arguing that the District Court had erred in its assessment of the statutory grounds for suppression. The Crown took a neutral position on the appeal, while Stuff Limited and NZME Publications Limited opposed the name suppression. The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the grounds for suppression under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 were made out and, if so, whether the discretion to grant suppression should be exercised. The High Court found that Ms X had established the grounds for suppression, specifically the risk of extreme hardship and prejudice to the maintenance of the law. The Court considered the cumulative effect of various factors, including Ms X's high profile in her community and the potential health risks associated with her pregnancy. The Court also noted that the presumption of innocence weighed heavily in Ms X's favour, given her unblemished record and significant contributions to her community. Balancing these factors against the open justice principle, the Court found that the discretion should be exercised in Ms X's favour, leading to the suppression of her name and identifying details until further order of the Court. This decision underscores the importance of protecting individuals facing criminal charges from potential irreparable reputational damage, especially in cases involving allegations that could significantly impact their professional and personal lives.

Orders