R (CA219/2025) v R - [2025] NZCA 470

Name suppression - appeal 

Appeal dismissed. 

Mr R appeals a decision of the High Court declining his application to suppress his name and that of his mother, Ms T. Mr R has a long history of mental illness. Mr R had previously killed an individual closely connected to him while dependent on mental health services, and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Mr R has since killed Ms T, his mother, and was again found not guilty by reason of insanity. 

It is accepted that the whānau of Mr R and Ms T, as victims of the offending, would suffer undue hardship if their names were published in connection to the killing of Ms T under s 200(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The focus of the appeal is therefore on whether the undue hardship suffered by the whānau outweighs the public interest in open justice, with a particular focus on the relevance that tikanga has to that inquiry. It was submitted on behalf of Mr R that allowing publication would afflict further muru to the whānau and add to the whakamā they have already endured. This would be an unreasonable punishment, particularly as it would be imposed by the court (an unrelated third party). with the consequence of the court exacting a new level of utu. 

Issue: Does the undue hardship suffered by whānau outweigh the public interest in open justice? Held: No.

Tikanga may assist courts in determining whether or not an applicant has demonstrated they will suffer extreme hardship, or whether a victim has established they will suffer undue hardship, and in assessing the extent of that hardship. However, even when the hardship suffered by Mr R's whānau is assessed through a tikanga lens, it does not outweigh the strong public interest in open justice in this case. There is an overwhelming interest in the principles of open justice in this case. Ms T's death was discussed openly at her tangihanga, and expert evidence did not suggest that any tikanga principles were inconsistent with the principle of open justice. Additional inquiries and the inquest into Ms T's death will be hampered if authorities cannot openly identify Mr R as the individual who killed two persons closely connected to him whilst dependent on mental health services. The public also has a right to know about Mr R's history of violence, and in particular, the family of Mr R's first victim have an interest in knowing and freely discussing that Mr R has killed another person closely connected to him.