Prominent figure with name supression 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
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Police shooting: Coroner rules Shargin Stephens' death was 'preventable'
Shargin Stephens was shot dead by a police officer in July 2016. Photo: RNZ/Vinay Ranchhod Police tactics in the fatal shooting of Shargin Stephens showed a disregard for the right to life, according to a scathing coroner's report. A probationary officer in "a heightened emotional state" pushed his way past experienced officers and got "unnecessarily and dangerously close" to Stephens, who was holding a slasher after smashing up a police car, and shot him twice with an M4 rifle. Coroner Michael Robb ruled the death , in July 2016, was preventable and his 207-page report painted a picture of police chaos on the day, including a lack of leadership and a failure to de-escalate the situation. He said frontline officers were inclined to treat safety of their own and the public as the exclusive considerations, and that "concern for the individual they are dealing with and their right to life is at best muted in the New Zealand police risk assessment process". The coroner said that, a decade on, it appeared police have learned little from the shooting, and the officers involved were defensive when questioned and still don't believe they did anything wrong. Police, though, say many of the changes recommended by Robb have already been implemented. Robb, the third coroner to deal with the case, referred his findings back to the police and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), saying it was up to those agencies, if they wished to take further action. Stephens - a 35-year-old Māori man with a string of convictions, but no history of violence - had been on electronic bail in Rotorua for about six weeks, with no identified breach of his conditions. Despite knowing where he was, police bail-checked him 70 times in the 38 days before the shooting, waking him up with late-night door knocks. "Mr Stephens was polite and compliant, but significantly frustrated by the police actions," the coroner said, and "felt that the police were deliberately playing games with him". One morning, he snapped and smashed up a police car with a garden slasher, but never presented a physical threat to officers or the public, the coroner said. The windows of a police car smashed by Shargin Stephens Photo: Screengrab / TVNZ / Te Karere The case had a long and turbulent history. The IPCA initially said the police shooting was justified, and the late-night bail checks were "reasonable" and played no role in his death. But in 2021, RNZ obtained documents detailing the police investigation into the homicide , and found multiple inconsistencies between what officers told the IPCA and what they had told their own investigating officers. In an unprecedented move, the IPCA re-opened its investigation after RNZ's reporting and its second report, in 2022, said the bail checks were "oppressive" and may have been a factor in the killing. Now the coroner has ruled that Stephens did not need to die that day. "I have concluded that Mr Stephens' death was preventable," his finding said. "The officers in attendance did not have a mindset or adequate training to enable them to slow and de-escalate the incident in a way that could have prevented the police taking Mr Stephens' life." The coroner found that the officer who shot him - who had several years in the army, but just one year with police - was an unreliable witness, who claimed to have seen multiple things that did not happen. The officer, who has permanent name suppression and is referred to by his codename L05, was sharply censured in the coroner's report. "L05's original pre-prepared statement, his police interview statement, the statement he filed in the Coroners Court in advance of the inquest, and the evidence he gave before me at inquest was not consistent with the events." The coroner dismantled the officer's entire rationale for arming up with a Bushmaster M4 rifle and shooting Stephens, saying his evidence was "consistently inaccurate" and that he "alleged matters that did not happen". Relying on witness accounts, CCTV and taser footage, the coroner found there were "multiple matters alleged by L05 that simply did not occur". These included wrongly claiming that he had witnessed two police attempts to taser Stephens before he was shot and falsely claiming that Stephens was advancing on another officer to hack him with the slasher. "His account incorporated a detailed narrative of actions carried out by Mr Stephens that he claimed he watched from close proximity, which he said was the reason he went to the boot of his vehicle, and loaded and armed himself with an M4 rifle," the coroner said. "I have found that he did not see Mr Stephens act in the way he described." He said it was possible L05's "concern over his own situation" led him to search for a narrative that could support a claim of self-defence under section 48 of the Crimes Act. The coroner said that, during the inquest, L05 maintained he had calmly played a support role in the confrontation, but that wasn't true. "Through his arming himself with the M4 rifle and his physical actions, he seemed to have taken it upon himself, despite being the most junior officer, to take control of the police engagement with Mr Stephens." Police surrounding Shargin Stephens on July 14, 2016 Photo: Screengrab / TVNZ / Te Karere L05 advanced on Stephens - moving from about 15-20 metres away to just 6-7 metres in the final seconds of the confrontation - a distance the coroner described as "unnecessarily and inappropriately" close. The coroner said L05's risk assessment was flawed, because he claimed Stephens was moving with purpose towards a Rotorua shopping centre, when in fact he was disorientated and wandering aimlessly. Critically, in the 12 seconds L05 advanced on Stephens, there was no person in imminent danger. "Stephens was not advancing towards anyone, he was not heading towards the shopping centre, he had stopped and was facing towards L05 throughout the time L05 continued to advance on him with the rifle." He said L05's actions reflected his limited experience and "a level of panic", but also revealed the police attitude to the use of lethal force. The inquiry found police were wrong to claim Stephens was high on meth and a danger to the public. "When interviewed, officers characterised Mr Stephens' behaviour as being high on methamphetamine and violent, with descriptors of him including that he was a goal-driven individual," the coroner said. "My review of the evidence has led me to conclude that he was not 'goal driven', he was not high on methamphetamine and, through to the moment he was shot, he was not physically violent towards any person, nor was this his intention or goal on the day he was shot." In a statement , the Stephens whānau thanked the coroner, their legal team and supporters, including the Wallace family, who lost their son Steven to a police shooting in 2000. The whānau made a "call for accountability and human dignity in police conduct", and also reached out to the shooter, L05. "We send you and your whānau compassion and peace," the whānau said. "We are now enmeshed as two peoples, forever connected by the loss of two lives - one lost in innocence, the other in death. "We hope your path to healing becomes gentler, and that this tragedy may serve as a threshold toward a future filled with possibility and healthy growth." Police gather evidence at the scene of the shooting. Photo: Screengrab / TVNZ / Te Karere Although the shooting was nearly a decade ago, the coroner's report was damning for the police today, because it said they had not learned from it. The coroner highlighted flaws in the police approach, including a failure to cordon and contain Stephens, and a lack of leadership and control, which allowed the most junior officer to take the lead role. "He took it upon himself to immediately try to engage directly with Mr Stephens, pushing his way in front of other officers," the coroner said. "He was in an overly elevated emotional state to the point where he was perceiving the events in a significantly inaccurate way. He received no directive, guidance or leadership from any senior officer either at that time." The coroner found "a defensiveness by officers giving evidence, an unwillingness to accept any criticism of their actions" and "limited willingness to reflect on anything that could have been done differently now". He is particularly critical of the shooter L05, who - when giving evidence eight years after the shooting - gave "no indication that he had reflected on anything that he might have done differently". Coroner Robb said police still had the attitude that, if they could claim an offender presented a threat, then that justified shooting them. "It further highlights my concern that the current New Zealand police risk assessment encourages a justification approach, whereby being able to articulate a possible anticipated risk can be relied on to then justify a lethal force action." When conducting their own homicide investigation into the shooting, police waited a month before interviewing L05. There was none of the scrutiny that would normally occur in a homicide investigation, where evidence such as CCTV and taser footage would be analysed, and inconsistencies in witness accounts challenged. "There was no challenge of L05's account at any juncture," he said. "There was no indication of any 'heavy debrief' of his or any other officer's risk assessments within the police review processes." In a statement, Bay of Plenty district commander Superintendent Tim Anderson said inquiries had found the officer involved was legally justified in shooting Stephens in self-defence to protect both himself and members of the public. "We acknowledge these events have a profound effect, not only on families, but also on our staff," Anderson said. "There has been significant scrutiny of this event over a period of nearly 10 years and we will always take any opportunity to improve how we respond, to keep people safe. Shooting people is an absolute last resort decision that our staff constantly hope they never have to make. "I want to commend the professionalism of our staff who responded to this incident. "Police officers are committed to protecting life and upholding the law. They are trained and prepared to respond to critical incidents, and our priority is to resolve an incident peacefully and without the need to use force by exhausting all reasonable, tactical alternatives. "When an officer uses force to protect themselves or others, it is a tactical decision made after risk-assessing the threat, the exposure to harm being faced, the necessity to act and the best response considering all those factors." Although Coroner Robb referred his report back to the IPCA and the police, he stopped short of saying that L05 should face prosecution. He said that, at the moment Stephens was shot, he had moved diagonally closer to L05, with the slasher raised in his right hand. "In that moment, L05 may have reasonably felt in danger," the coroner said, adding that would likely fall within a claim of self-defence under the Crimes Act. "For that reason, I do not consider it appropriate to refer that aspect of L05's actions back to the police for further investigation." Among the coroner's recommendations were that police wear body cameras. He also said probationary officers should be trained to "avoid asserting charge or control" over more senior officers, and should not access M4 rifles, except as a matter of last resort. He also recommended more training on de-escalation and what constitutes an imminent threat "to emphasise that preservation of life is a police responsibility", along with protection of their colleagues and the public. Anderson said police would consider the recommendations, but many of the them had already been implemented, after the two IPCA reports and internal reviews of the incident over the last nine years. Bail management practices were overhauled and all of the recommendations made by the IPCA in 2022 were implemented. "We also note the coroner's recommendation that police wear body-worn cameras (BWC), which our commissioner has signalled, as one of the few law-enforcement agencies without BWC, is a priority to deliver for frontline staff. "Work is underway to explore options to do this, while also considering the legal, privacy and operational issues this will raise." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Jailed for importing meth
An Australian deportee has been jailed for four and a-half years after a kilogram of meth was shipped to Dunedin from Singapore. Grant Jeffrey Beale, 58, appeared in the Dunedin District Court this week after pleading guilty to importing the class-A drug, supplying it and offering to supply. It was not as though the 501 deportee was the kingpin of the operation, funding a lifestyle of luxury — he had been living in a boarding house and stood to make only $10,000 from the "risky" enterprise. While the drug consignment landed in Dunedin on July 12 last year, the collapse of the illicit operation began six days earlier. That day, Customs intercepted a 13kg package destined for Auckland, listed as containing "halle bone curette fiber handle", seemingly orthopaedic surgical instruments. But once the parcel was opened, officers discovered nearly 2kg of methamphetamine. The drug haul then led them to Beale. Customs records showed a near-identical package had been delivered to a Dunedin address on July 12 last year. It had the same gross weight, supplier, contact number and consignment description as the Auckland one. Inquiries revealed the parcel had been sent to a Dunedin backpackers, addressed to "Marcell Cogan" — a fictitious name. Behind the scenes, Beale had arranged for another man to be paid $5000 to retrieve the meth, which had a street value of up to $500,000. Court documents noted the defendant was receiving orders from those higher up the chain and was not involved in organising the shipment. He also had nothing to do with the Auckland incident. Beale's intercepted cellphone messages revealed what happened in the following weeks. He told an associate the "gear is fine not chunky" before asking him to delete their correspondence. Much of Beale's subsequent communications were shrouded in a thinly veiled code language, discussing "3 quarter drive 21mm". "I'll send car to same mechanic as last time yes I think they done good job," he wrote. While it was obvious to police that Beale was referencing three-quarters of an ounce of meth (21g), it was evidently too cryptic for his counterpart. "You lost me mate? Don't think that message was for me," the man wrote. Beale later received texts from another party, speaking about half a ton of "wood". The following day, though, the charade was dropped as the drug buyer criticised the quality of the supposed timber. "It's orange," the customer sent. "My pipes all black at bottom ... wheres the good dry rock we got at start." (sic) Counsel Sarah Saunderson-Warner stressed Beale's role was "effectively operational than managerial" and was motivated by his addiction. The defendant had a background of trauma and deprivation, though he had had periods of steady employment through his life. "Negative impacts have kept coming back to haunt him as the years have gone on," Ms Saunderson-Warner said. Judge David Robinson noted Beale had no previous New Zealand convictions but was deported from Australia after being charged with possessing dangerous drugs. The 52-year-old man tasked with collecting the methamphetamine will appear in court in November.
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Wellington councillors baulk at spending $7 million to fence stretch of waterfront
Graphics show how the Wellington waterfront would appear with balustrades. Photo: Supplied / Wellington City Council Wellington City Council has voted against spending $7 million to fence a stretch of its waterfront. On Thursday, the environment and infrastructure committee debated fencing sections of Kumutoto and Queens Wharf - from about the Maritime Police Station to Shed 6 - to address safety concerns. Councillors wanted more time to assess the effectiveness of the safety measures that had already been put in place, such as extra lighting. The effort to improve safety followed recommendations made to the council after a coronial inquest into the death of 30-year-old Sandy Calkin . Coroner Katharine Greig found Wellington's waterfront lacked adequate measures to prevent Calkin's death and recommended installing permanent edge protection. Council officers recommended installing the balustrades on Kumutoto and Queens Wharf without community consultation to give urgency to the coroner's recommendations. Chief operating officer James Roberts told the meeting balustrading was the only practical option for those areas, which were narrow in parts and busy, with a high concentration of bars and restaurants. "Our advice is that, given the limited options available, which is either balustrade or do nothing, you are able to make that decision today, enabling officers to get on and address this outstanding public safety issue without delay. "For the rest of the waterfront, there are multiple practicable options and public consultation can help guide your decision-making." He acknowledged council had improved safety already with measures like extra lighting, but said the risk of an accidental fall was not fully removed. "If council wants to improve public safety here, there really is no other way of doing it." Councillor Iona Pannett urged councillors to heed both expert advice and the coroner's report, and said the council's first obligation was to keep people safe. "While I'm generally in favour of public consultation... what is the purpose in this case?" she said. Some councillors felt they had mitigated danger with the extra measures and wanted to find out whether it had made enough difference before deciding whether to spend the money. Councillor Ben McNulty said, while he voted against the spend, he still wanted improved waterfront safety. "I'll be voting against the paper, so that we can have some time given to monitor the effectiveness of the improvements that have already been made or are underway. "Targeted safety improvements could be presented to a future council, if required." Councillors Sarah Free, Iona Pannett, Laurie Foon and Nureddin Abdurahman voted for, with the remaining 13 councillors voting against. What would happen now was not clear. "Council officers will be working through next steps related to edge protection, following today's decision," a council spokesperson said.
