Counsel for the defendants argued name suppression should remain for several reasons, including that the case was still in its early stages and possibly a year from trial.
The charges are related to a workplace incident, which preceded one similar.
It’s alleged that WorkSafe only became aware of the initial incident when investigations were underway into the second incident and that despite requests for all documentation WorkSafe was told the company could find no reference to a similar incident.
Suppression was also sought on the grounds that publishing the defendants’ names would cause reputational damage and extreme hardship to them, their families and the entities associated with the company.
Michael Vesty, the lawyer acting for one of the defendants, said the consequences of publicity would go “well beyond ordinary consequences” for a matter that was yet to reach the case review stage, and for the defendant who faced charges around alleged dishonesty on an individual level.
“The court would struggle to find a case where one’s reputation was more important,” Vesty said.
Suppression was opposed because the grounds advanced did not reach the “very high threshold” of extreme hardship.
The Crown argued that the application for suppression would fail at the first discretionary stage.
Prosecutor Jackson Webber said that because the company was not a defendant, it could not be said that hardship would exist for anyone connected with it.
He said there were no logical explanations given as to how publication of the defendants’ names would impact the functions of the business, its clients or staff, other than nebulous claims around bad outcomes if their names were published.
“These kinds of claims are very easy to make.
“The defendant’s assertion that the stated consequences are likely to follow is not enough.
“The argument advanced of ‘extreme hardship’ is very much lacking in detail and evidence beyond assertions,” Webber said.
NZME submitted the nature of the charges, including alleged dishonesty and alleged circumvention of the Health and Safety at Work Act, warranted lifting of suppression.
Counsel for NZME Ashleigh Harding said Parliament designed the Act to create a high level of responsibility among employers.
She argued that heightened media interest in the case - a point raised by the defence - was linked to the heightened public interest in such matters, and the media’s role in this should not be underestimated.
Judge Rielly said in respect of the defendant facing two charges, the first threshold test for suppression had by a “very fine margin” not been met. Secondly, the principles of open justice prevailed and therefore suppression was not granted.
With regard to the other defendant, the threshold for suppression had not been met by a “significant margin” and the application was declined.
Vesty then indicated an appeal was likely to be lodged within the statutory 14 days.
