The Herald's bid to reveal the identity of an American billionaire caught smuggling drugs into New Zealand reached the Court of Appeal in Wellington yesterday.
The 66-year-old businessman's name will remain a mystery until a decision is made by a full bench of five Court of Appeal judges.
After a day-long hearing, court president Sir Ivor Richardson, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and Justices Blanchard, Tipping and Sir Kenneth Keith reserved their decision. The appeal follows a six-month legal battle by the Herald to name the businessman, who admitted bringing more than 100g of cannabis resin and plant into the country during the America's Cup.
When the magnate appeared in the Otahuhu District Court on January 6 and 7, Judge David Harvey discharged him without conviction and permanently suppressed his name.
In June, a milestone High Court ruling found that Judge Harvey had overlooked the Bill of Rights Act and acted wrongly in the law.
The judgment accepted the Herald's application to overturn permanent suppression. However, the billionaire lodged an appeal.
Yesterday in the Court of Appeal, his lawyers, Alan Ivory and Marie Dyhrberg, argued that the High Court judgment was wrong and criticised Judge Harvey unreasonably.
Mr Ivory said Judge Harvey was an experienced judge who could be taken to know the law.
The grounds for appeal were:
Judge Harvey was not required to give the reasons for granting name suppression. His lack of reasons did not justify the inference that the Bill of Rights Act was not taken into account.
In making his decision, Judge Harvey was apprised of all relevant facts.
The Herald had not exercised its rights to be heard when the suppression order was made in the district court. Therefore, it had lost its right to a review.
The businessman's $53,000 donation to Odyssey House was not a consideration in granting name suppression.
The application for name suppression should have gone back to the district court for redecision.
For the Herald , lawyer Bruce Gray said Judge Harvey did not apply the law correctly and overlooked the Bill of Rights Act. In granting name suppression, he was not aware of the businessman's full background. Although the accused was successful in business and gave to charities, he was a person who used cannabis more than once.
"No district court judge properly applying the law to these facts should conclude there should be name suppression," Mr Gray said. "Name suppression is to protect reputation. Before it is granted there needs to be some understanding of what that reputation is, also outside New Zealand."
Bid to name rich dope smuggler reaches Appeal Court
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.