IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
BETWEEN ALFRED HAROLD KEATING
Appellant
AND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
ORAL JUDGMENT OF POWELL J
[1] The appellant, Alfred Keating, has been charged with attempting to intentionally make an intimate visual recording.
He has sought name suppression pending trial on this charge. His application for continued name suppression was however
declined by His Honour Judge KJ Glubb in the District Court at Auckland.
[2] In the hearing in the District Court Mr Keating advanced a number of grounds in support of his application; that it
would cause him extreme hardship through making it difficult to obtain future employment, and would cause extreme
hardship to others including his partner, a close family friend, and his son and daughter. He also raised the
possibility of reputational damage to the New Zealand Defence Force. Each of these arguments was rejected by Judge Glubb
on the basis it did not meet the high threshold set out in s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011(“CPA”). …
...
...
[25] I accordingly conclude that Judge Glubb was quite correct in declining to continue name suppression, and, in
particular, on the matters still in issue in this appeal. Given the conclusion I have reached it is not necessary to
turn to the second discretionary stage of the analysis under s 200(2). Had it been necessary to do so I am satisfied
that the poorly particularised harm claimed by Mr Keating would not have been sufficient to displace the presumption of
open justice, particularly given the public interest in this case where New Zealand’s international reputation, the
reputation of those at the New Zealand Embassy in Washington DC, and the reputation of the Royal New Zealand Navy and
New Zealand Defence Force have been called into question. Decision
[26] The appeal is dismissed. Publication of Mr Keating’s name, occupation and identifying particulars are accordingly
now permitted.