R v Carruthers HC Dunedin CRI-2011-012-001611 [2011] NZHC 955 (31 August 2011)

Last Updated: 9 September 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

_{CRI-2011-012-001611}

REGINA

v

DEAN ROBERT CARRUTHERS MARK ROBERT CARRUTHERS PETER RICHARD HOLMES

Hearing: 31 August 2011

Appearances: R P Bates for Crown

A Stevens for D Carruthers B Kilkelly for M Carruthers J A Westgate for P Holmes

Judgment: 31 August 2011

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HON JUSTICE FRENCH

_{on application for interim suppression of name}

Introduction

[1] Mr Dean Carruthers is currently facing trial for murder. He seeks continuation of interim suppression of his name on the grounds of his vulnerable mental health.

[2] In support of the application, Mrs Stevens has filed a letter from

Mr Carruthers’ doctor dated 7 June 2011, as well as a discharge form from the

_{Southern District Health Board.}

R V CARRUTHERS HC DUN CRI-2011-012-001611 31 August 2011

[3] Mr Carruthers is 47 years of age. In 1982 he suffered severe head injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident. He was unconscious for two weeks and required extensive rehabilitation at Cherry Farm.

[4] According to the letter from the doctor, the severe head injury has left Mr Carruthers with permanent intellectual impairment, speech difficulties and weakness in his left arm.

[5] The doctor also says that the current prosecution has affected Mr Carruthers, and that he has become reclusive, depressed, and is not sleeping.

[6] The letter concluded by recommending further name suppression, as publication would severely affect Mr Carruthers further.

[7] The doctor’s letter was written on 7 June, as I have said. On 22 June Mr Carruthers was referred to the mental health facility by his lawyer because he was voicing suicidal thoughts. He was admitted on 22 June and discharged on 24 June.

Discussion

[8] The legal principles relating to applications for suppression of name are well established. The issue essentially is whether Mr Carruthers’ personal circumstances are sufficiently serious or exceptional to justify departure from the fundamental principle of openness.

[9] Having read the medical information, I am satisfied that they are not sufficiently serious or exceptional.

[10] Fortunately, as far as Mr Carruthers’ health is concerned, the discharge form says that he is deemed to pose no risk to himself or others. Mrs Stevens further informs me that he is currently stable and under psychiatric care.

[11] In those circumstances I have come to a clear view that interim suppression of name is not warranted, and the interim order accordingly lapses.

[12] It follows from this decision that the suppression order in favour of Mr Carruthers’ son, Mark Carruthers, who is a co-accused, must also be revoked. The only reason for the suppression order in favour of the son was for the purposes of protecting the identity of the father. The two stand and fall together.

[13] The matter is further remanded to 23 November 2011. Bail is to continue for

Mr Dean Carruthers, and Mr Mark Carruthers is now remanded in custody.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Dunedin

A Stevens, Dunedin

B Kilkelly, Dunedin

J A Westgate, Dunedin