A well-known Auckland professional man (65) and a female associate (60) caught up in major drug-related crime can be named at 5pm today unless they file a last-minute appeal in the Court of Appeal.In a comprehensive judgment released on Thursday afternoon
A well-known Auckland professional man (65) and a female associate (60) caught up in major drug-related crime can be named at 5pm today unless they file a last-minute appeal in the Court of Appeal.
In a comprehensive judgment released on Thursday afternoon, High Court Justice Rebecca Ellis dismissed the pair’s appeal against the district court’s earlier refusal to give them permanent name suppression.
The pair have had their names, occupations, relationship and the serious charge they faced, suppressed since their arrest with a third co-accused in July, 2008.
The third accused, Nicholas Henry Voerman (57), changed his plea from not guilty to guilty earlier this year.
He was sentenced to 12 months jail, to be served at the same time as a three year jail term imposed last September when Voerman admitted large-scale trafficking in Ecstacy.
The woman changed her not guilty plea in February and pleaded guilty to the serious charge, which carried a maximum penalty of seven years jail.
She was convicted and fined $10,000.
The man was discharged under s347 of the Crimes Act.
Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway, of Christchurch, strenuously opposed the man’s discharge when Judge Colin Doherty, of Dunedin, dealt with the case in the Auckland District Court in January.
The argument turned on a legal point concerning the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence, namely records of intercepted conversations in which reference was made to the man but to which he was not a party.
The Crown specifically relied on the intercepted evidence against the man on the basis of the co-parties/conspirators exception to the hearsay rule.
When refusing suppression, Judge Doherty had not misdirected himself in law, had not applied an improper principle, had not failed to take into account some relevant factor, had not taken into account an irrelevant matter and was not wrong, Justice Ellis said.
She said there was no error on Judge Doherty’s part.
Justice Ellis’ decision, which came down strongly in favour of the public’s right to know, contains details which cannot be published until any further appeal right is exhausted or abandoned.
Canvassing leading court decisions on name suppression, Justice Ellis said the public interest in open reporting of judicial proceedings was not limited to cases where there had been a conviction.
“There is a very real public interest in knowing about all aspects of the operation of the justice system and court process,” the judge said.
“There is a risk of undermining public confidence in the courts if secrecy surrounds those who are acquitted or discharged.”
