Prominent figure with name suppression set to reappear in court
RNZ / Dan Cook
A prominent New Zealander is set to reappear in court on Monday.
RNZ earlier revealed a prominent New Zealander
had been arrested
.
After being made aware of the man's arrest, RNZ approached the Wellington District Court to see if there were any suppression orders and when he would be appearing in court.
In response, a registrar said the man faced eight charges, all of which are category three offences meaning the offence is punishable by imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for two years or more.
However, an application had been granted prohibiting media from being able to report the man's name, identifying particulars as well as the nature of the charges he faced before his first appearance.
The man appeared in the Wellington District Court via audio visual link on 3 July.
Media opposed the suppression orders. However, the defendant's lawyers asked for the orders to continue on an interim basis until their next appearance. Judge David Laurenson agreed to continue the orders.
The man was remanded on bail without plea until his next appearance on Monday.
Under the Criminal Procedure Act a court may make an order forbidding publication of the name of a person who is charged with an offence if the court is satisfied publication would be likely to result in eight different outcomes including causing extreme hardship and creating a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial.
The fact a defendant is well known does not, of itself, mean that publication of his or her name will result in extreme hardship.
At first appearance a defendant only needs to advance an "arguable case" that one of the eight grounds applies.
The only section in the Criminal Procedure Act that permits suppression of the charges is section 199C, which permits suppression of "trial-related information" where the court is satisfied publication of that information is likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. Trial-related information includes "any other specific information in relation to any trial".
Where an interim order is made under section 199C it only lasts until the defendant's next court appearance.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
22 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Complaints made to Law Society after James Gardner-Hopkins accused of using LinkedIn to intimidate women
By Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice reporter of James Gardner-Hopkins. Photo: Facebook / James Gardner-Hopkins Multiple female lawyers claim that a former senior partner who was suspended for drunkenly groping interns at a Christmas party has been using a social media platform to intimidate them. James Gardner-Hopkins inadvertently became the face of New Zealand's #MeToo movement after his conduct towards junior female colleagues at Russell McVeagh was made public. The former partner at the top law firm was suspended in 2022 after he was found to have inappropriately touched five young women at two parties in 2015. However, earlier this year, when his suspension ended, Gardner-Hopkins applied for a Practising Approval Certificate (PAC), which is a licence lawyers need to work in the legal profession. Multiple branches of women's law associations, and their individual members, opposed his readmission to the profession and made submissions to the New Zealand Law Society. However, following those submissions, multiple women have complained that Gardner-Hopkins has found their profiles on the social media networking site LinkedIn, and has been repeatedly accessing them to "intimidate" them. "This is a recognised form of intimidation. By viewing their profiles openly, he is making it clear to these women that he is watching them. This behaviour appears to be designed to intimidate those who have raised legitimate concerns," the Wellington Women's Law Association (WWLA) wrote to the Law Society after several of its members had their profiles viewed. "There is an option to view LinkedIn profiles anonymously, yet he has chosen not to use it. Over the past few days, this behaviour appears to have escalated, with some women reporting it has occurred multiple times. There appears to be no legitimate reason for him to be doing this." The WWLA didn't name Gardner-Hopkins in its own LinkedIn post about the issue, but said it had received complaints from 10 women, one of whom was a law student, claiming he had done the same to them. Barrister Steph Dyhrberg, who represented three of Gardner-Hopkins' Christmas Party victims, also wrote to the Law Society in June with similar concerns. "He (Gardner-Hopkins) has for some time (starting around the time opposition to his application started emerging) been repeatedly viewing the LinkedIn profiles of many women who have spoken up about his misconduct and/or opposed his application, including those who made a written submission," Dyhrberg wrote. "This has been happening again over the past few days. Some women report he has done it to them at least three times. There is no possible legitimate reason for Gardiner-Hopkins to do this. It is a recognised form of intimidation: he is doing it on an open basis so the women know he is checking their profiles." A spokeswoman for New Zealand Women's Law Journal said they were also aware that since submissions were made against Gardner-Hopkins being granted a practising certificate, he had been viewing profiles of women associated with the journal on LinkedIn. "We are appalled at Gardner-Hopkins' behaviour and it only reaffirms the concerns the Journal expressed to the Law Society in March," they said. "We call on the Law Society to condemn this behaviour and to take it into account in their decision regarding Gardner-Hopkins' practising certificate." In response to Dhyrberg, a spokesperson for the New Zealand Law Society said the concerns would be passed on to the decision maker from the Practising Approval Committee, and to Gardner-Hopkins' lawyer. A spokesperson for the Law Society told NZME that Gardner-Hopkins' application for a certificate is still ongoing, and as yet, no decision has been made. They said that when adverse comments are received about a person applying for a PAC, those are shared with the applicant along with the identity of the person who made the submission, but their contact details aren't disclosed. "The Law Society values the significant contribution members of the profession and commenters make to our decision-making processes, and we expect every commenter will be treated with respect, courtesy and professionalism by applicants," the spokesperson said. Gardner-Hopkins told NZME in July that he was going through a process and had been advised to let that take its course before commenting publicly. He said the same thing when asked for comment this week about allegations he'd been using LinkedIn to intimidate women who had made submissions against him. 'Put plainly, Gardner-Hopkins sexually assaulted multiple junior women staff members…' The approval process for a Practising Approval Certificate is confidential, but multiple branches of women's law associations around the country published their submissions against Gardner-Hopkins rejoining the profession online, after they'd submitted them to the Law Society. "Put plainly, Gardner-Hopkins sexually assaulted multiple junior women staff members in his capacity as a partner on two separate occasions," submissions from the Auckland Women's Lawyers Association president, Karlene O'Halloran, read. "There is obvious public concern regarding Gardner-Hopkins' fitness, which as a profession we must address properly. A practising certificate is a privilege, not a right, and its issuance must be aligned with the legal profession's core values." The Wellington branch of the association said that his readmission would undermine the integrity of the profession, while the New Zealand Women's Law Journal said that issuing him a practising certificate would, in effect, be condoning sexual assault and harassment. "It also undermines the efforts of those who compromised their career prospects in order for someone who is not fit and proper to be held accountable for their failings. Of course, if Gardner-Hopkins is issued a practising certificate, their efforts will count for little," the journal's submission reads. - This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Fire at Tairua police station destroys car
Tairua Police Station. Photo: Google Maps / supplied A garage and a police car have been destroyed in a fire at a police station in Coromandel. Emergency services attended the blaze at the Tairua Police Station about 5.20am on Saturday. Police said no one was hurt and the station sustained minimal damage. They said the fire was not being treated as suspicious. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Joshua Oliver's victim left waiting for reparation he offered her at sentencing following sexual attack
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of Joshua Oliver was sentenced to six years' and three months' imprisonment for the sexual violation of a woman. Photo: NZME / supplied Warning: This story includes details of sexual offending and may be distressing. When a woman who was sexually violated after a work party was proactively offered a reparation payment by her attacker at sentencing, she thought it would be paid "then and there". She also thought it would be the end of the matter, and she could start to move on with her life. The victim told NZME that while $2500 felt like a "pathetic amount" compared to what she'd been through, and the financial loss she'd suffered, it would be some help towards Christmas, which was then coming up. But the money didn't turn up in her account, and calls to the police and courts left her doubting if she'd ever see the money. It was only after NZME became involved that the money has now been paid, nine months after Joshua Oliver was sentenced to imprisonment, having received a 5 percent discount for remorse - a discount that took into account his offer of emotional harm reparation. While the government's Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money said she couldn't comment about specific cases, she acknowledged there were ongoing concerns about unpaid reparation. In particular, she worried sentencing took into account reparation or other offers, and yet they often did not materialise. "The judge can only take [offers] at face value, so the judiciary takes into account all offers and all signs of remorse as part of a normal sentencing process." A 'manifestation' of remorse A jury found Oliver guilty in June last year on a charge of sexual violation, for an attack while the victim was asleep and intoxicated after a work party. After an evening of socialising, the victim had gone to bed in a spare bedroom in a friend's house, only to wake to Oliver "forcefully" violating her. Her victim impact statement said it had been one of "the most extreme violations a person can endure". It left her traumatised, unable to work, and she told the court her children had lost the "carefree, happy mother they once knew". When Oliver was sentenced in October, he provided a remorse letter and made the offer of emotional harm reparation. Judge Lawson said $2500 couldn't "possibly repay the financial loss that the victim suffered, but it is an offer which I can take into account as a 'manifestation' of the remorse you've talked about". The judge was persuaded that comments Oliver made to a pre-sentence report writer, and the contents of the letter provided to the court, suggested he appreciated the impact of his actions. "Very often in cases like this, we find victims left in a state of doubt because the defendants maintain their innocence and do not accept the verdicts. Here you have accepted what you have done and that your offending has caused harm to the victim." "More than that", Oliver had made the offer of $2500 emotional harm reparation. Taking all that into account, Judge Lawson gave Oliver a 5 percent discount for remorse, as well as 10 percent for Oliver's background, to arrive at an end sentence of six years' and three months' imprisonment. He ordered the emotional harm reparation, though didn't give any specific directions about timeframe in his oral judgment. The victim said there had been a lot of "back and forth" trying to get the reparation, and she had followed up with the collections team at the court. She was told there had been an unsuccessful attempt to collect the money while Oliver was in custody, and she wouldn't get the reparation for "at least another six years, or when he gets out of prison, if [she gets it] at all". The victim told NZME that from the start, it had felt like a "pathetic amount". She'd been unable to work after the attack, and it had derailed the career she'd been pursuing. Despite that, she and her husband had seen the sentencing as the end of the process, and expected the offered reparation would be paid straight away so they could move on. "We were like, oh good, Christmas is not far away, we can actually 'do Christmas', kind of thing... but then it never came." She thought that because the money had been proactively offered, and had informed the discount, it would be paid "then and there". "If you're not gonna pay it, don't get 5 percent off... stay in prison for a few more months," she said. The victim's husband said they thought, "this is sentencing, he goes to prison. The payment is made. We move on with our lives and don't have to think about it again." Before the payment was made, the victim said chasing up the payment had made it hard to move on and put the attack, and the trial, behind her. It had felt "never-ending", she said. It was only after NZME contacted a representative for Oliver that the payment was made. However, despite several requests for comment, NZME has not received any official response about why it hadn't been paid earlier. Figures released to NZME in March, revealed unpaid reparation in the Tauranga District Court sits at $5,717,308, while the total outstanding reparation across the country is $105,678,413. Ministry of Justice National Service Delivery group manager Tracey Baguley couldn't comment on specific cases, but said when reparation was ordered in cases where a defendant was sentenced to imprisonment, the ministry would still attempt to collect the payment. That was payable within 28 days unless specific alternative timeframes were directed by the judge. "When an offender is in prison... however, enforcement options are often limited," Baguley said. Enforcement could include wages or bank account deduction, seizing property and, in some cases, suspending the offender's driver's licence. "...the legislation does not empower the court to pay the victim before it is collected from the offender; instead, the offender pays reparation, with payments enforced by the court." This is an area that Money, the government's chief victims advisor, has much to say about. When reparation went unpaid, it could cause issues with trust and confidence in the court system. It could also have a "long-lasting impact" on victims. "Either receiving little drip-fed amounts over a long period of time, as a constant reminder of their trauma," she said. "Or waiting many years, and still perhaps nothing materialising at the end of it." She had seen "many" cases where reparation had been paid swiftly, however, and where the offender had paid reparation while in prison. "Often the survivor is using that for therapy, for loss of income over missing work... it allows them to truly draw a line in the sand." She wanted to explore whether the state could pay the reparation, and then chase up the offender, rather than leaving it to victims. "That is an expensive option, particularly in today's economy. But is that a reason for us not to do it? Absolutely not." If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111. - This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald
