[Full document: Fairfax_New_Zealand_Ltd_v_Ismail_Name_Suppression.pdf]
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CRI-2014-485-000056
[2014] NZHC 1525
UNDER
Subpart 7 or Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011
IN THE MATTER
of an appeal against an order suppressing the name of the Respondent made by the District Court at Wellington in
CRI-2014-085-005323 on or about 30 May 2014
BETWEEN
FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Appellant
AND
MUHAMMED RIZALMAN BIN ISMAIL
Respondent
[…]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J
Introduction
[1] This judgment explains why on 1 July 2014 I granted an appeal by Fairfax New Zealand Ltd (Fairfax) from a decision
of Judge Davidson made in the Wellington District Court on 30 May 2014. Fairfax appealed Judge Davidson’s decision to
extend an interim name suppression order in relation to Mr Ismail.
[…]
Analysis
[19] Judge Davidson was placed in an unenviable position when the police advised him that they did not oppose
continuation of the interim name suppression orders. With the benefit of hindsight it would have been wiser for the
police to have focused on whether or not the statutory criteria for interim name suppression applied.
[20] Mr Burston, who did not appear for the police in the District Court, has now properly focused on the statutory
criteria for name suppression and agrees with Fairfax that none of the criteria for name suppression applies in this
case.
[21] I agree with the stance now taken by Fairfax and the police. In particular:
(1) there was no suggestion Mr Ismail would suffer extreme hardship if his name was published in connection with the
charges;
(2) there was no suggestion that it was necessary to suppress publication of Mr Ismail’s name in order to avoid casting
undue suspicion on another person. On the contrary, continuing to suppress publication of Mr Ismail’s name is likely to
unfairly cast suspicion on other members of the Malaysian High Commission in New Zealand;
(3) there is no suggestion that publishing Mr Ismail’s name will cause undue hardship to the victim. The victim of this
case enjoys automatic name suppression and nothing may be published which could identify her; [Criminal Procedure Act
2011, s 203.]
(4) there is no suggestion that publication of Mr Ismail’s name would pose a real risk of prejudice to any trial. Mr
Ismail has now left New Zealand’s jurisdiction and, as at 1 July 2014, there was no certainty he would ever face trial
in New Zealand; and
(5) there is no suggestion that any of the other criteria in s 200(2) of the Act applied in this case.
[22] Thus, absent any statutory basis to continue the interim suppression orders made in favour of Mr Ismail, I allowed
Fairfax’s appeal. When reaching this conclusion I was satisfied that while the Convention required Mr Ismail be treated
with due diplomatic respect, his status did not alter the statutory criteria that governed the decision that was made on
30 May 2014.
[23] I carefully considered whether or not it was appropriate to hear the appeal in the absence of any representation
for Mr Ismail. As Mr Ismail chose to exercise his right to leave New Zealand and place himself beyond the immediate
jurisdiction of New Zealand’s courts I believed he had effectively waived any right he would otherwise have had to be
heard in relation to the appeal.
Conclusion
[24] The order made on 30 May 2014 continuing the interim name suppression of Mr Ismail was quashed by me on 1 July
2014.
[25] Nothing may be published which names or otherwise identifies the victim.
[Full document: Fairfax_New_Zealand_Ltd_v_Ismail_Name_Suppression.pdf]