So we are only prevented from discussing his name and other suppressed aspects of the case.
I believe it is fine to mention this other case, also featuring a name suppressed defendant, that may be relevant to all of this. This might explain why the Court of Appeal has ruled that name suppression will end on the delivery of their verdict, unless a further appeal is lodged.
However I can't see why name suppression will be needed from here on out, as an appeal won't involve juries or witnesses. It will only be on matters of law, and the facts as established at trial. So typically one would expect name suppression to end on conviction.
Given the Court of Appeal has now ruled on name suppression, one can logically infer that the High Court had indeed ruled to end name suppression sometime recently, and our convicted murderer had appealed that to the Court of Appeal. I guess his last throw of the dice would be to appeal that decision to the highest court in the land.
I believe it is fine to mention this other case, also featuring a name suppressed defendant, that may be relevant to all of this. This might explain why the Court of Appeal has ruled that name suppression will end on the delivery of their verdict, unless a further appeal is lodged.
However I can't see why name suppression will be needed from here on out, as an appeal won't involve juries or witnesses. It will only be on matters of law, and the facts as established at trial. So typically one would expect name suppression to end on conviction.
Given the Court of Appeal has now ruled on name suppression, one can logically infer that the High Court had indeed ruled to end name suppression sometime recently, and our convicted murderer had appealed that to the Court of Appeal. I guess his last throw of the dice would be to appeal that decision to the highest court in the land.
Judge delivers guilty verdict in High Court rape trial
The defendant and the complainant had met up for a date, first drinking at bars in Auckland's Viaduct in April 2018, the court has earlier heard.
They later ended up at an Auckland motel where, Crown prosecutor Claire Paterson earlier told the court, the complainant felt drunk - in her description "wobbly but not sick".
They began kissing on the bed and when things began to go further than she would have liked, she made it clear she did not consent, the prosecutor said.
Judge delivers guilty verdict in High Court rape trial - NZ Herald
The defendant and the complainant had met up for a date, first drinking at bars in Auckland's Viaduct in April 2018, the court has earlier heard.
They later ended up at an Auckland motel where, Crown prosecutor Claire Paterson earlier told the court, the complainant felt drunk - in her description "wobbly but not sick".
They began kissing on the bed and when things began to go further than she would have liked, she made it clear she did not consent, the prosecutor said.
Judge delivers guilty verdict in High Court rape trial - NZ Herald
Last edited:
