‘One law for rich’ concerns

A legal expert has questioned the name suppression granted to a millionaire businessman who pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine.

The Aucklander, who had admitted buying 112g of the Class A drug, was fined $1000.

Judge Russell Collins ordered permanent suppression of the man’s name, occupation and company.

Collins said naming him would cause undue hardship to his family and business.

Criminal law professor Warren Brookbanks, of Auckland University of Technology, said yesterday: “I struggle to see why permanent name suppression should have been given in this case as opposed to any other, but that was the court’s decision.

“Cases like this are always going to be controversial. They create that perception that there’s a law for the rich and a law for the poor.”

People should realise there was a risk of detrimental public exposure if they became involved in drugs. “I think the courts are very well aware of public perceptions when they make suppression orders in cases like this.”

Another legal academic, Steven Price, of Victoria University, said: “While I can say that the leading Court of Appeal decision says that some harm to family or business goes with the territory when someone is convicted, and that harm needs to be very significant before suppression is granted on those grounds, I can’t tell how significant the harm was in this case without seeing the evidence, the arguments and the judge’s reasoning.

“It’s conceivable that suppression was justified here.” The Crown and the Herald’s lawyers unsuccessfully argued against suppression.

The businessman was a minor player in a drug ring allegedly selling cocaine and methamphetamine to high-flying clients.