Youth Court Decisions How to Use Full list of key titles CYPFA section Date

R v Rawiri, Rawiri, PK & AP & RR & DH & JK & BK (3 July 2002) HC, Auckland, T 014047, Fisher J

Name: R v Rawiri, Rawiri, PK & AP & RR & DH & JK & BK
Unreported
File number: T 014047
Date: 3 July 2002
Court: High Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: Fisher J
CYPFA: s329, s438
Charge: Murder, Aggravated Robbery, Attempted Aggravated Robbery, Theft
Key Title: Media reporting

Summary: Choy Trial Ruling No (4); application for name suppression. Six out of the eight defendants were young people ("YP"). Matters committed to High Court after preliminary hearing in Youth Court and thus s329 and s438 CYPFA no longer applied (I v Police (1991) 7 FRNZ 674; R v Fenton & Ors (No 1) (1/2/00, HC, Auckland, T992412, Chambers J). Whether YPs have made out a case for name suppression under s140(1) Criminal Justice Act 1985 ("CJA"). Discretion under s140 CJA requires balance of competing interests; authorities in favour of openness of justice; no special considerations other than the youth of the accused. International instruments: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 14 para 4; United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("the Beijing Rules") and UNCROC Art 40 discussed; application of international instruments possible as there is judicial discretion and no inconsistent statutory provisions; UNCROC consistent with CYPFA. V v The United Kingdom (Application under 24888/94) 16 December 1999, European Court of Human Rights (trial of 10 year old who battered a two year old to death) discussed; there it was held trial unfair as stress placed on child - despite name suppression in place until conviction - in breach of European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, para 1. Govt in that case unsuccessfully argued that public trial necessary for the open administration of justice and freedom of information.

UNCROC Art 40: children should have privacy respected as a "guarantee"; more moderate position that discretion to be exercised in every case in light of circumstances but when dealing with a young accused the Court should be much more ready to suppress the name than in adult cases; children more vulnerable to stress during proceedings; greater prospect of rehabilitation with children. As to suppression of YP’s name under CJA s140 there is no irrebuttable presumption either way; Court must consider the same factors as it does with adults except that youth is a "powerful additional reason for name suppression"; more likely to suppress name if defendant is particularly young, likely to be placed under stress and where charge is more serious. Here, as to "B" (the youngest YP and 12 at time of offence) Court unwilling to risk publishing B’s name which, in combination with other pressures on him, could interfere with the conduct of his defence at trial; as to "H" (solely charged with attempted aggravated robbery), matter may have been disposed of in Youth Court with automatic name suppression.

Decision: Name suppression for B and H; interim name suppression for other YPs until 4/7/02 when it will terminate unless evidence is found to show that publication would significantly affect the conduct of the defence.