[1] The appellant operates a brothel in Christchurch. She is alleged to have employed two girls under the age of 18 to engage in striptease performances involving sex acts at one of the establishments and one of the girls to provide services as a prostitute. She faces six charges under the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 of facilitating and deriving benefits from commercial sexual services and two charges under s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 that she hired or entered into dealings with the girls for the purpose of their sexual exploitation.
[2] When she first appeared before the Court in November 2007, an order for interim name suppression was made which was renewed from time to time until the issue was argued before Judge MacAskill. In his judgment of 2 October 2009 he ruled that name suppression should lapse. The appellant seeks leave to appeal against decision on the ground that the Judge failed to give proper weight to relevant considerations, in particular, that the publication of the appellant’s name would prejudice a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence.

Judge MacAskill’s decision

[3] In his decision Judge MacAskill reviewed the relevant factors by reference to Lewis v Wilson & Horton.[1] He rejected a submission that publication of the appellant’s name would result in potentially irreparable damage to her business. He also dismissed the suggestion that the lifting of name suppression might risk identifying the complainants.
[4] He was asked to have regard to the distress that name publication would cause to the appellant’s 17-year-old daughter. He observed that any such distress would arise as much from publication of the nature of the appellant’s business interests as from the nature of the charges.

Application for leave

[5] Judge MacAskill was not asked to consider possible prejudice to a fair trial, which was at the forefront of argument before us. Mr Evans argued that the novelty of the charges faced by the appellant had led to a high level of media interest. He said the lifting of name suppression would inevitably generate a fresh wave of publicity, which would jeopardise the appellant’s right to a fair trial.
[6] Mr Evans placed particular weight on the likely effect of publicity about the Crimes Act charges. The appellant had made an unsuccessful application for a discharge on all charges under s 347 of the Crimes Act. An application for judicial review in relation to the Crimes Act counts was rejected by French J.[2] Mr Evans claimed that an intended appeal against her decision would be nugatory if prior publicity referred to the Crimes Act charges.

Decision

[7] We cannot see how publication of the appellant’s name could affect her right to a fair trial. Any publicity attendant on the lifting of name suppression will be confined to identifying the appellant and describing the charges she faces. Her fair trial rights will be unaffected if the Crimes Act charges do not proceed as a result of a successful appeal to this Court.
[8] Judge MacAskill’s reasoning is unimpeachable and nothing has been raised on appeal to require us to revisit his decision.

Result

[9] Leave to appeal is refused.

Solicitors:
Young Hunter, Christchurch for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

[1] Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2000] 3 NZLR 546

[2] Horlor v District Court at Christchurch and Anor HC Christchurch CIV-2009-409-002499, 12 March 2010

NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2010/84.html