district court logo

New Zealand Police v Bolton [2019] NZDC 5271

Published 23 July 2019

Application for discharge without conviction — published a name in breach of law — breach of name suppression — victim of sexual offending publicly named — no remorse — talkback radio — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 106 & 107 — Criminal Procedure Act, s 211(2). The defendant sought a discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act (the Act) after pleading guilty to one charge that he published a name in breach of s 211(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. He had twice stated the name of a complainant in a sexual offending matter on a public talkback radio programme. Under s 107 of the Act a Judge may discharge a person without conviction but only if they are satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction will be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. First, the Judge will decide how serious the offending was, which requires consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances relating to the offending and the offender. Next, direct and indirect consequences of conviction will be identified. Finally, the Judge will consider whether those consequences are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The Judge found the offending was not insignificant and was aggravated by the defendant's complete lack of remorse. He denied any knowledge of suppression orders. He also offered to make an emotional harm payment. The consequences to the complainant were significant. People began approaching her about the offending against her and she eventually gave up her employment because of the effects of the publication. The Judge considered the consequences against the defendant as difficult to address. He was described as living a "blameless life" until this point. Due to the high media interest in the case the impact of a conviction was not likely to impact his privacy. By a narrow margin, because of the defendant's previous good character, the discharge without conviction was granted. The defendant was to pay the complainant $1500 for emotional harm. Judgment Date: 21 March 2019.