ExAll Black retains name suppression

WELLINGTON: An exAll Black charged with drinkdriving has been fighting to keep his identity a secret.

The man was due to appear in court yesterday morning, but after The New Zealand Herald filed a media application for the appearance, an earlier hearing was scheduled without media present.

It is understood a judge granted an ex parte suppression order for the man last week, so his name could be kept secret until suppression could be ruled on this week.

Ex parte orders are ‘‘unusual’’ and require ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ to be granted.

‘‘The average person wouldn’t get this,’’ University of Canter bury dean of law Ursula Cheer said.

‘‘Ex parte means . . . that nobody gets a chance to hear that it’s even happened or argue against that.’’

A judge can make an ex parte suppression order without all of the interested parties to a case being present, concealing the identity of the defendant until the matter can be properly heard in court.

‘‘Ex parte orders are undesirable from an open justice perspective,’’ Prof Cheer said.

While there is nothing specific in legislation about ex parte suppression orders, ‘‘one would assume [they are] like any order’’, in that the defendant would need to be at risk of suffering extreme hardship to have suppression granted, she said.

The Criminal Procedure Act specifically states that the fact a person is well known does not, of itself, mean extreme hardship would follow the publication of their name.

Prof Cheer said it was important for media to be included in suppression arguments, as journalists ‘‘sit in court in place of the public’’.

‘‘We need to know that what goes on in court is correct and appropriate and fair.’’

If ex parte orders were not made only under exceptional circumstances, ‘‘the whole system would be undermined and transparency would be undermined’’.

Yesterday’s appearance was rescheduled to next month.

According to charging documents, the former rugby player is accused of driving with excess breath alcohol after allegedly giving a reading of 600mcg.

The legal limit is 250mcg, but anything over 400mcg can lead to a conviction.

A lawyer believed to be representing the man declined to comment. — NZME

❛ Ex parte orders are undesirable from an open justice perspective

Prof Ursula Cheer