Judge Anne Kiernan says publishing the name of a rich person's son accused of bashing a policewoman could prejudice his "right to a fair trial". Photo / Greg Bowker
Judge Anne Kiernan says publishing the name of a rich person's son accused of bashing a policewoman could prejudice his "right to a fair trial". Photo / Greg Bowker
Auckland judge Annie Kiernan made a bad call when she suppressed the name of a rich person's son accused of bashing a policewoman after a newspaper asked questions about the progress of his case.
According to the Herald on Sunday, the rich person's son - who had already appeared four times in the Dunedin District Court without seeking name suppression - is charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, assaulting a security guard and damaging a window during a March fracas outside a Dunedin student drinking den.
The rich person's son allegedly punched a policewoman in the face. She is said to have suffered a black eye, serious swelling and needed hospital treatment.
The rich person's son's case was transferred from Dunedin to Auckland, and there is apparently a reason for that, but that's another secret the court won't share.
After questions from the Herald on Sunday, the rich person's son's lawyer applied for interim name suppression - and Judge Kiernan was happy to oblige by ordering the rich person's son's name remain a secret for at least three more weeks.
Judge Kiernan reckoned publishing the rich person's son's name could prejudice his "right to a fair trial".
No, says CaseLoad. Judge Kiernan is wrong.
If the rich person's son goes to trial, a judge will not be influenced, nor will a properly directed jury be prejudiced by having read his name in the paper beforehand.
If the rich person's son admits offending and pleads guilty, then no harm is done to his trial "rights."
Are folk expected to believe that the son of an un-rich person facing similar charges in similar circumstances - including an alleged assault on a policewoman - would get his name suppressed because a newspaper asked questions?
Pull the other one...
The rich person's son and his lawyer didn't think it worthwhile to apply for name suppression in Dunedin - maybe because unsympathetic judges there are sick of drunken trouble, rife in the student quarter.
For criminal court judges to suppress the names of rich family members because of newspaper curiosity exposes a perception of a two-tier bias favouring wealth and privilege.
Is that what judges mean when they preach about "transparency" and the need for justice to be seen to be done?
One thing Judge Kiernan and the rich person's son's lawyer have now guaranteed is massive media coverage when the case is finally heard, as well as strong media objection to continued suppression.
No doubt by then another name suppression bunny will be lurking in the legal top hat.
Or maybe the rich person will give his errant son a kick in the breeks and make him face up to responsibility.
* CaseLoaders will recall how, in August 2013, Judge Kiernan suppressed the name of an 18-year-old who was on bail when he brutally attacked homeless Auckland man Edwin Linder, who later died in hospital.
Steven Churchis. Photo / Dean Purcell
At the time, the offender - later identified as Steven Churchis - was already on bail and due to be sentenced in the Tauranga court on a series of theft charges.
On that occasion Judge Kiernan thought it was a good idea to suppress Churchis' name to ensure his "right to a fair trial" and not prejudice an ongoing police investigation.
Churchis was found guilty of Linder's murder and jailed for a minimum of 11 and a half years.
Words worth remembering
"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having."
Source: Lord Justice Stephen Sedley, allowing a 1999 appeal by Alison Redmond-Bates, a Leeds fundamentalist, against her conviction for obstructing a police officer by preaching.
Why was the man found guilty by an Auckland High Court jury of the rape and murder of Blessie Gotingco - who sacked his publicly-funded legal aid lawyer early in the trial in favour of doing it himself - able to get legal aid reinstated?
The man found guilty by an Auckland High Court jury of the rape and murder of Blessie Gotingco. Photo / Sarah Ivey
And why did trial judge, Justice Tim Brewer, continue the man's name suppression, especially when the judge allowed photographs of him to be published?
There is speculation the man may already have a bad criminal history.
Justice Brewer lifted name suppression immediately following last week's guilty verdicts but the suppression remains in effect because the man's off-again, on-again legal aid lawyer Chris Wilkinson-Smith filed an immediate appeal against lifting suppression, saying the man also planned to appeal his convictions.
Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery and Justice Brewer agreed there was nothing so unusual about the case that warranted continued suppression.
The public will have to wait until the man is sentenced on August 6, when hopefully a bit more transparency may emerge.
But why is someone who sacks their legal aid lawyer at the start of a trial then allowed to have legal aid reinstated at the end?
And who picks up the bill for Wilkinson-Smith remaining in court for weeks as an amicus curiae - a friend assisting the court?
John Banks' affair not yet over
Expect heads to roll over the botched Crown case against former Auckland mayor and ACT MP John Banks - acquitted and exonerated the other day by the Court of Appeal on a charge of knowingly making a false electoral expenses return.
In the Banks case, the Crown - in the form of prosecuting Queen's Counsel Paul Dacre - failed to tell the Court of Appeal of a crucial memorandum it had which was also not disclosed to Banks' lawyers.
Banks claimed the Crown knew, but did not tell the Court of Appeal when it last year quashed Banks' earlier conviction and ordered a retrial, that its principal witness, Kim Dotcom, had changed his evidence when confronted with affidavits filed on appeal by Banks.
John Banks was acquitted and exonerated the other day by the Court of Appeal on a charge of knowingly making a false electoral expenses return. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Banks maintained that had the Court of Appeal known the true position the court would not have ordered a retrial.
The Court of Appeal agreed and now says there was a serious error of process, but one it accepts was attributable to an error of judgment rather than misconduct. But says the Crown's omission to tell it about Dotcom's change of evidence "occasioned a miscarriage of justice."
Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson says he is taking a close look at how the Crown came to mislead the court.
CaseLoad's breakfast think-tank thinks it will go badly for Dacre and his boss Crown Solicitor Mike Heron, QC - who tried to wriggle Dacre off the miscarriage hook before both of them went down in a screaming heap at the Court of Appeal.
CaseLoad says a serious miscarriage of justice would have prevailed if Amanda and John Banks had not been determined to reveal the truth, at considerable personal cost. Which is why those responsible for the Crown actions which wronged Banks cannot be allowed to shrug it off and stroll away...
Truth sought about Crown jobs
In order to put an end once and for all to slander and gossip, CaseLoad invites Solicitor General Mike Heron, QC and his boss Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson, QC to come clean on Crown Law's recommendations on candidates for Crown Solicitor in Auckland and Manukau.
CaseLoad invites Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson QC to come clean. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Meredith Connell retained the Auckland warrant the firm has held for more than 90 years and Brian Dickey was confirmed as Auckland Crown solicitor to replace Simon Moore, who was made a High Court judge in March 2014. (CaseLoad May 8)
Natalie Walker, of relatively new partnership Kayes Fletcher Walker, was appointed Crown solicitor at Manukau. She is the wife and legal partner of Ned Fletcher, a son of Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias.
Since they were announced the other day, legal folk have been spitting jealous envy and muttering "nudge nudge" conspiracy over both appointments.
Crown Law's public prosecutions manager Dean Winter, sidestepped CaseLoad's request for clarity, by claiming that any information held by Crown Law relating to the appointments was held on behalf of the Attorney-General, who Winter says is not subject to the Official Information Act.
Winter says Crown Law therefore does not hold the requested information.
So to prove to detractors that the appointments were not influenced by Meredith Connell's long standing grip on the role, or Walker's family connections, CaseLoad awaits Finlayson's clarifying response.
CaseLoad appreciates that the information sought may not be technically obtainable within the provisions of the Official Information Act but made his request in the public interest and in the interests of transparency - fundamental interests CaseLoad is sure Finlayson upholds.
It's time for all players to put their cards on the table...
"A sensible approach, CaseLoad," said Our Man At The Bar, sponging his tie in expectation of "a wee something" in the Queen's Birthday honours.
"Must have been at the Bombay again," said The Scunner.
Watch this space...
The other side of the coin
On criticism of Judge Robbie Ronayne's two-tier sentencing approach (CaseLoad May 15 and 22), Dick Barry writes:
"I enjoy your column but suggest that your comments about Robbie Ronayne cause unnecessary offence to the small town people of Tauranga and to the man himself.
