THE QUEEN v WYNYARD WALTER ANANIA [2000] NZCA 258 (24 March 2000)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

ca 93/00

THE QUEEN

V

WYNYARD WALTER ANANIA

Coram:	Thomas J Blanchard J Tipping J
Judgment:	24 March 2000

judgment of the court DELIVERED BY THOMAS J

[1] On 22 March this year, Mr Anania was convicted in the District Court of theft by misappropriation.The District Court Judge sentenced Mr Anania to 13 months imprisonment, nine months periodic detention, and directed that he make reparation in the sum of $20,000.His imprisonment was suspended for two years.

[2] Mr Anania has appealed against his conviction and has sought an order prohibiting publication of his name pending the hearing of the appeal.Further grounds of appeal are advanced by way of affidavit.

[3] Because the existing restraint on publication is to expire at 5 p.m. today, the reference to this Court has been given urgency and, at counsel's request, is being determined on the papers.

[4] This Court has spelt out in a number of cases the principles which apply to applications seeking an order prohibiting the publication of the name of an accused or convicted person.See R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 and Proctor v R [1997] 1 NZLR 295.The starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right of the media to report the latter fairly and accurately as "surrogates of the public".The applicant's personal reasons for name suppression must outweigh these fundamental considerations.

[5] The present case falls far short of a case requiring name suppression.

[6] More particularly, the fact that Mr Anania is pursuing an appeal is not in itself a ground for suppressing his name.Save for exceptional circumstances, the principle of open justice requires that both the original hearing and any appeal take place in open Court.

[7] Mr Anania has also relied on the fact that he would be likely to lose his job as an Out of Parliament Support Staff member if his name is published.He has also described problems relating to his health, the health of his father and the grief of his family due to the death of two family members.

[8] As stated in Proctor v R, supra, at 299-300 extreme hardship and the predictable impact on the applicant's employment and equally predictable effect on his family do not generally outweigh the principles favouring open reporting.They do not do so in this case.

[9] For the above reasons the application is declined.

Solicitors

Crown Law Office, Wellington