Claim and Issues:
This opinion answers the question of whether Slim can be granted permanent name suppression under s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) for charges of cocaine use laid against Slim under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The grounds Slim can appeal under the Act include s 200(2)(a) and (e), being:
I) Can Slim be granted permanent name suppression due to the “extreme hardship” she will be under if her name is released?
II) Whether Slim should be granted name suppression due to Bezpucci’s fragile, suicidal state and the possible endangerment that disclosure of Slim’s name will cause her?
III) The issue of whether disclosure of Slim’s name would create a risk of prejudice to a fair trial can be reviewed. However this is a lesser issue that doesn 't carry much weight as Slim already has interim name suppression. Issue I: Under s 200(2)(a) of the Act requires that the Court may make an order for the publication of the name if publication would be likely to cause extreme hardship to the person charged with the offence. It is stated in the Law Commission that the now repealed Criminal Justice Act 1985 gave the Courts a broad discretion. The Criminal Procedure Act sets a higher threshold, and this is addressed in D v Police in which there is an emphasis on whether publication of a name will cause “extreme” or “undue” hardship”. This requires the court to accept that distress, embarrassment and personal and financial consequences are not unusual in criminal proceedings. The threshold has to be set high, as we see in R v Liddell, where the offender’s wife only just made it, and their distress is seen as an expected consequence of the crime. It is said that balance between the open justice principle and exercise of discretion must “clearly favour” suppression. This should be referenced with the public’s right to freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence, who the defendant is, and the seriousness of the offence. Slim’s cocaine use isn 't ongoing and she has checked herself into rehab, meaning that she has disassociated herself from cocaine. Slim is unsettled about the fact that her business and reputation could possibly be destroyed if her viewers and fans find out about her criminal charges. This belief is reflected in K v IRD, K’s evasion of tax linked directly to his business as the defendant is a principle in a tax and an accounting firm, therefore it is expected that K’s business will be impacted as he was found to be dishonest, and the principle of open justice is for protecting customers so they can make proper decisions. The legislators have given the court’s power to override open justice if they see it necessary to. However, there needs to be a balance between open justice and the public interest, as well as the defendant’s welfare. The objective assessment as set out by Barry J in K v IRD, evaluates whether the hardship to a defendant outweighs the open justice principle, and if the consequences were foreseeable to the offender, it is more difficult to claim hardship. …show more content…
This reflects the opinion that due to Slim being in the public eye, on television, she should have been aware that her cocaine use may well have been noticed by more viewers, other than the policeman. Slim can’t be granted automatic name suppression on the grounds of hardship purely because she is a well-known celebrity In relation to whether Slim’s business would suffer, or “be destroyed” seems unlikely as her business is not linked to the cocaine use, unlike the link between the crime and business seen in K v IRD. Although her reputation may well be tarnished, this is a factor that Slim should have taken into account as she is a celebrity chef. It should have been obvious to Slim that the loss of her reputation could possibly be a foreseeable factor. As Slim went on live television displaying signs of cocaine use, therefore the disappointment that her criminal charges would bring her fans possibly might not qualify as an “extreme hardship”. Issue II: Addressing s 200(2)(e) of whether the publication of Slim’s name will cause endangerment to that of Bezpucci, a friend
This opinion answers the question of whether Slim can be granted permanent name suppression under s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) for charges of cocaine use laid against Slim under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The grounds Slim can appeal under the Act include s 200(2)(a) and (e), being:
I) Can Slim be granted permanent name suppression due to the “extreme hardship” she will be under if her name is released?
II) Whether Slim should be granted name suppression due to Bezpucci’s fragile, suicidal state and the possible endangerment that disclosure of Slim’s name will cause her?
III) The issue of whether disclosure of Slim’s name would create a risk of prejudice to a fair trial can be reviewed. However this is a lesser issue that doesn 't carry much weight as Slim already has interim name suppression. Issue I: Under s 200(2)(a) of the Act requires that the Court may make an order for the publication of the name if publication would be likely to cause extreme hardship to the person charged with the offence. It is stated in the Law Commission that the now repealed Criminal Justice Act 1985 gave the Courts a broad discretion. The Criminal Procedure Act sets a higher threshold, and this is addressed in D v Police in which there is an emphasis on whether publication of a name will cause “extreme” or “undue” hardship”. This requires the court to accept that distress, embarrassment and personal and financial consequences are not unusual in criminal proceedings. The threshold has to be set high, as we see in R v Liddell, where the offender’s wife only just made it, and their distress is seen as an expected consequence of the crime. It is said that balance between the open justice principle and exercise of discretion must “clearly favour” suppression. This should be referenced with the public’s right to freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence, who the defendant is, and the seriousness of the offence. Slim’s cocaine use isn 't ongoing and she has checked herself into rehab, meaning that she has disassociated herself from cocaine. Slim is unsettled about the fact that her business and reputation could possibly be destroyed if her viewers and fans find out about her criminal charges. This belief is reflected in K v IRD, K’s evasion of tax linked directly to his business as the defendant is a principle in a tax and an accounting firm, therefore it is expected that K’s business will be impacted as he was found to be dishonest, and the principle of open justice is for protecting customers so they can make proper decisions. The legislators have given the court’s power to override open justice if they see it necessary to. However, there needs to be a balance between open justice and the public interest, as well as the defendant’s welfare. The objective assessment as set out by Barry J in K v IRD, evaluates whether the hardship to a defendant outweighs the open justice principle, and if the consequences were foreseeable to the offender, it is more difficult to claim hardship. …show more content…
This reflects the opinion that due to Slim being in the public eye, on television, she should have been aware that her cocaine use may well have been noticed by more viewers, other than the policeman. Slim can’t be granted automatic name suppression on the grounds of hardship purely because she is a well-known celebrity In relation to whether Slim’s business would suffer, or “be destroyed” seems unlikely as her business is not linked to the cocaine use, unlike the link between the crime and business seen in K v IRD. Although her reputation may well be tarnished, this is a factor that Slim should have taken into account as she is a celebrity chef. It should have been obvious to Slim that the loss of her reputation could possibly be a foreseeable factor. As Slim went on live television displaying signs of cocaine use, therefore the disappointment that her criminal charges would bring her fans possibly might not qualify as an “extreme hardship”. Issue II: Addressing s 200(2)(e) of whether the publication of Slim’s name will cause endangerment to that of Bezpucci, a friend