R v Riach CA66/00 [2000] NZCA 429 (20 April 2000)

Last Updated: 18 January 2019

PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA66/00

THE QUEEN

V

GREGORY JOHN GRAYDON RIACH

Coram:	Thomas J Keith J Blanchard J
Judgment (ex parte):	20 April 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY KEITH J

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent assault and was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment and eight months periodic detention. His application for permanent name suppression following his trial was refused. The appellant now appeals against the decision refusing suppression. The appeal has been dealt with on the basis of written submissions by the appellant who had been declined legal aid.
[2] The appellant and the complainant began living together in 1994. The appellant moved out in early 1995, although the relationship continued off and on until late 1997. Following their separation the complainant decided to arrange more permanent access for the appellant to the couple’s daughter. In June 1998 the complainant visited the appellant to discuss the access arrangements. During the course of the visit the appellant expressed a desire to have sexual intercourse with the complainant. When she refused the appellant threatened to kill her and forced her to have sex with him. A week later the complainant returned to discuss access arrangements with the appellant. Again the appellant threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.
[3] The appellant was charged with two counts of sexual violation by rape. As a result of an amendment of the indictment the appellant pleaded guilty to two lesser charges of indecent assault.
[4] The District Court Judge refused an order for permanent name suppression. He referred to the appellant’s personal circumstances:

although deserving of some consideration, [they were] not in the end sufficient to take me to the view that there must be a final order for suppression of your name.

The Court is required to act in an open way in dealing with these matters, and I have had reference to the Court of Appeal decisions which have been delivered in respect of matters of this kind. The offending was serious in the sense of the nature of the charges and the sentence imposed. I cannot find that there is sufficient information, although I have referred to the personal circumstances there to take me to the stage where I can make now a final order for suppression of your name and that is refused.

[5] The discretion to order name suppression under s140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 is to be exercised with caution and the starting point must always be the importance of openness in the conduct of judicial proceedings (R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538). In cases involving offending of a serious nature it is only very rarely that the interests of the family justify an order suppressing disclosure of the offender’s identity. The judge in the present case considered the appellant’s personal circumstances and in his discretion declined to make the order sought. It cannot be said that he erred in the exercise of that discretion. We also consider that the personal and family factors present in this case which have been stressed by the appellant in his written submissions are not sufficient to justify an order for suppression of the appellant’s name given the serious nature of the offending.
[6] Accordingly we are not persuaded that the District Court Judge erred in the exercise of his discretion under s140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. The appeal is dismissed.