The Criminal Procedure Act allows a court to prohibit the publication of a connected person's name
The Court of Appeal has refused to grant interim name suppression in a case involving charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and participation in an organised criminal group.
The appeal in Pona v R [2023] NZCA 669, centred on the argument that publishing Mr Esen Pona's name would cause undue hardship to Mrs Haley Pona, a senior registered nurse in Auckland. The couple, who married in May 2023, sought to extend the interim name suppression initially granted in the Manukau District Court.
The Court of Appeal examined the statutory context outlined in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA), which allows the court to forbid the publication of a defendant's name if it would likely cause extreme hardship. The law also empowers the court to prohibit the publication of a connected person's name if it would likely cause undue hardship.
The court considered the grounds presented by the appellants, focusing on Mrs. Pona's potential hardship especially in relation to her career and employment. Mrs Pona, a dedicated nurse with 10 years of experience and currently pursuing a nurse practitioner program, expressed concerns that the association with her husband's alleged offences could jeopardise her internship, registration, and employment.
However, the court concluded that neither undue hardship nor extreme hardship had been established. The court pointed out that Mrs Pona had not provided sufficient evidence supporting the likelihood of the claimed consequences. The court noted that Mrs Pona's concerns about losing her progression in becoming a registered nurse practitioner lacked independent evidential support.
Despite acknowledging the potential embarrassment Mrs Pona might face due to her husband's alleged involvement in the drug operation, the court ultimately held that it did not meet the statutory threshold of undue hardship.
The appellants' grounds for appeal included claims that Mr Pona played a fringe role in the alleged offences and that the evidential picture against him was less significant than that of other defendants. The court, however, dismissed these arguments.
The court concluded that no reasonable employer would impose adverse consequences on Mrs Pona, and the court found it highly unlikely that the Nursing Council would consider stripping Mrs Pona of her nursing registration when she is a dedicated practitioner with an excellent track record.
The trial for Mr Pona and his co-defendants will commence in April 2025. The court ultimately refused to grant name suppression and dismissed the appeal.
