Birchfield initially faced two charges including an incident where he allegedly assaulted his brother, Gary Birchfield, using a vehicle as a weapon on May 1 this year. The charge was later dismissed after police accepted there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charge.
It was further alleged that several days later, having been issued with a trespass notice to stay off a property in Kaiata, he wilfully trespassed by attending that property within two years after the warning had been given to him.
The location of the alleged offending is referred to as a Kaiata yard, ownership of which is vested in various entities owned and operated by the Birchfield family, including Allan Birchfield himself.
Following a civil proceeding about these family interests, Allan Birchfield was removed as a director of Birchfield Coalmines.
“There continue to be disputes between Mr Allan Birchfield and his brother Gary Birchfield about access to the Kaiata yard and various other matters,” Justice Harland said.
Birchfield pleaded not guilty to the charges on June 28 and elected a judge-alone trial.
Harland said Birchfield was a “longstanding elected member” of the West Coast Regional Council. He was currently serving his seventh term.
“There has been some publicity about Mr Birchfield’s relationship with other councillors and council staff over the years. His personal views about matters of public interest, for example climate change, Covid-19 and the protection of significant natural areas under the proposed Te Tai o Poutini Plan, have attracted media interest.
“In various news articles, Mr Birchfield has been described as being a robust and sometimes controversial local body politician.”
In his initial submission to the District Court, Birchfield said he would experience extreme hardship if named and argued his reputation would be compromised if his name was published, which would likely “have a flow on effect” on his business.
He also argued that if his name was published in connection with the charges stemming from the family dispute it would become “untenable” for him to remain as a councillor.
The judge ruled that the threshold was met to continue suppression through until either a guilty plea or verdict.
After the District Court judgment to continue suppression, van Beynen appealed the decision.
He submitted the judge had made two errors of law, in finding Birchfield had met the legal threshold of extreme hardship and that he had not considered whether the hardship was “effectively trumped by the principle of open justice”.
Birchfield’s lawyer, Andrew McCormick, submitted the onus was on van Beynen to identify errors in the earlier decision, and said the Judge had correctly addressed the tests that applied.
“Mr McCormick submitted that the media has an almost obsessive interest in Mr Birchfield and that the matters raised on appeal were exactly the same as those which had been advanced before the District Court Judge and which he had taken into account.”
McCormick said the argument about suppression should take place at the end of the case.
Justice Harland said Birchfield did not say why his position as a councillor would become untenable, nor did he outline the impact on his business interests.
“Even though the Judge considered these matters in combination amounted to extreme hardship, looking at it afresh as I must on appeal, I conclude that the threshold has not been met. Although some hardship might result, it could not be described as extreme. The evidential material included in Mr Birchfield’s affidavit did not provide a sufficient basis for the Judge to reach the conclusion he did.”
She ruled that since he was no longer facing the more serious charge, Birchfield was now able to “more positively address any publication of his name in the media in relation to the remaining less serious charge”.
Justice Harland allowed the appeal, ending the suppression order.
Sam Sherwood is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers crime. He is a senior journalist who joined the Herald in 2022, and has worked as a journalist for 10 years.
