Name Suppression

Criminal Procedure Act 2011   Westlaw   LexisNexis


See s 200(2)  Publication has to be likely to:

(a)  cause extreme hardship to the person charged with, or convicted of, or acquitted of the offence, or any person connected with that person; or
(b)  cast suspicion on another person that may cause undue hardship to that person; or
(c)  cause undue hardship to any victim of the offence; or
(d)  create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; or
(e)  endanger the safety of any person; or
(f)  lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law; or
(g)  prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences; or
(h)  prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand

 

From Robertson v Police [2015] NZCA 7 (beginning at [39]):

The section contemplates a two stage analysis. Stage one is a threshold determination. Stage two is a discretionary assessment.

At the first stage, the judge must consider whether he or she is satisfied that any of the threshold grounds listed in 200(2) has been established. That is to say, whether publication would be likely to lead to one of the outcomes listed in subs (2). The listed outcomes are prerequisites to a court having jurisdiction to suppress the name of a defendant. It is “only if” one of the threshold grounds has been established that the judge is able to go on to the second stage.

At the second stage, the judge weighs the competing interests of the applicant and the public, taking into account such matters as whether the applicant has been convicted, the seriousness of the offending, the views of the victims and the public interest in knowing the character of the offender.

Updated on June 7, 2021

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Need Help?
Click the button below to get in touch
CONTACT US