MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Issue il The Respondent opposes [insert the orders you oppose] under [insert the statute and section] (Application). The Respondent agrees with the two-stage test for name suppression articulated by the Applicant, but wishes to emphasise: 2.1 [insert a point or points that the Respondent wishes to emphasise or draw specifically to the Judge's attention at this early stage. This could be a legal or policy point that presents a significant barrier to applications for name suppression.]. Background [Insert your background facts: be concise but choose the facts carefully to dispose the Judge toward your client. Be careful not to overstate the facts. You may only rely on facts and inferences supported by the affidavits filed]. Stage one - the jurisdiction stage of s200(2)(a) of the Act 4. The onus is on the offender to establish that there is a real risk of extreme hardship being inflicted upon a qualifying individual if their identity is not suppressed. [Note: insert legal authority for this proposition]. The Respondent draws the Court's attention to [two/three?] aspects of this legal requirements at the jurisdictional stage: 5.1 First, that [Insert discussion of the key aspects of this legal framework relevant to the jurisdiction stage of s 200(2)(a) that the respondent wishes to emphasise. Second [insert. There is no need to repeat everything the Applicant has said about this test (unless you disagree with it) but this is an 2. fremember to number your pages adjust as necessary] opportunity to pin the Judge's attention on aspects of the test that assist the Respondent.] 6. The Applicant has not met the onus of proving a real risk of extreme hardship to the Applicant itself because [set out your argument]. 7. The Applicant has not met the onus of proving a real risk of extreme hardship to the director of the Applicant, [name] because [set out your argument]. 8. The Applicant has not met the onus of proving a real risk of extreme hardship to the director of the Applicant, [name], because [set out your argument]. Stage two the \"discretion stage\" 9. If the Court finds that stage one of the enquiry is not satisfied, that is the end of the matter. The Application must fail. 10. If the Court finds that stage one of the enquiry is satisfied, it is submitted that this application fails at stage two of the enquiry, the \"discretion stage\". The second stage of the enquiry under s 200 of the Act [set out the legal framework for what is required at the discretion stage. Do not apply to the facts yet.] Robertson v New Zealand Police [2015] NZCA 7 at [41] 11. The Respondent submits that [insert]. 12. [Facts in support.] 13. [Facts in support.] 14. [How those factors outweigh the interests of the Applicant and so on.] . [remember to number your pages adjust as necessary] Conclusion 15. Counsel for the Respondent respectfully requests that the Court make an order declining continued name suppression under s 200 of the Act. Signed by counsel for the Respondent: Your name here Dated [write date in full] =1~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT FOR CONTINUED NAME SUPPRESSION UNDER S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 Remand status Not applicable Is the Prosecuting Authority consenting to this No application? Is this an amendment to a previous Notice of Application? Is an oral hearing requested? Estimated length of hearing 20 minutes To the Registrar of the District Court at Auckland and To Auckland Council, c/o Foster & Baker, Solicitors, 492 Great South Road, Auckland 1024 This document notifies you that - 1. The Defendant/Applicant will on (day 5 of the Advocacy onsite) apply to the Court for an Order: a. For continuing interim name suppression under s 200 Criminal Procedure Act 2011. 2. The grounds on which the order is sought are as follows: a. that publication of the Applicant's name would be likely to: i. cause extreme hardship to the Applicant; or ii. cause extreme hardship to the director of the Applicant, Kevin Callaher; or ili. cause extreme hardship to the director of the Applicant, Janelle Callaher; and b. that the principles of open justice and the public interest do not outweigh the factors in favour of name suppression; c. appearing in the affidavits of KEVIN GEORGE CALLAHER, JANELLE CALLAHER and PATRICK JOHN LOGAN sworn and filed herein; and d. to be advanced by Counsel at the hearing of this matter. 3. This application is made in reliance on: a. 5200 Criminal Procedure Act 2011: and q. | KEVIN GEORGE CALLAHER of Howick, Managing Director, swear: 1. | am the Managing Director of the Applicant in this Application for continued name suppression (the Application) in respect of a charge laid against the Applicant (22 days ago) under s 15(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (discharge of contaminants onto land in circumstances which may result in the water being contaminated) (Charge). The Charge relates to a white substance presumed to be mercury being found at Payne Domain, Otara on 21 September (last year). The Applicant is one of several companies in the Auckland region that deal with mercury. The Applicant was the only company Auckland Council investigated in relation to the substance found at Payne Domain. The Applicant has denied the Charge, and has been granted interim name suppression in relation to the Charge. The Applicant has an arrangement for a chemical disposal company called Dangerous Disposals Limited to remove the Applicant's chemical waste. This includes the Applicant's mercury waste. This arrangement was in place at the time of the offence in September (last year). The Applicant has a storage area onsite where chemical waste is stored pending removal. Prior to the offence, the Council had inspected and approved the Applicant's storage and removal facilities and processes. | ask that the Court make an order granting the Applicant continued name suppression as | believe that without it I, the Applicant and my wife (who is also a director of the Applicant) will suffer extreme hardship. | am the husband of JANELLE CALLAHER (\"Janelle\"). We have been married for 25 years. Janelle has also filed an affidavit in support of the Application. e The Applicant operates a chemical products factory in the East Tamaki industrial area. | am very proud of the work that the Applicant does, particularly our work supporting clients to undertake environmental protection activities. | believe that the Applicant has an excellent relationship with its clients and its 18 staff. | also believe that the Applicant has a very good reputation with clients and staff, and within the wider business community in South Auckland. | have been a director of the Applicant since setting it up 10 years ago. During this time, the Applicant has had a very low attrition rate of both staff and clients. | put this down to the seriousness with which the Applicant carries out its work, which is of a technical nature with profound ramifications for the environment if processes are not followed. The Applicant has detailed processes and procedures to ensure the safety of staff and the containment of the materials with which the Applicant works. Last year the Applicant had total revenue of approximately $2 million. Of this, $1 million was from two clients which are not-for-profit environmental organisations. | believe and the Applicant believes that if these clients became aware that the Applicant was facing the Charge then they would be very upset with the Applicant and with me. Both of these clients derive a significant amount of their income from the New Zealand Pohutukawa Rescue Trust to fund programmes to exterminate possums inthe North Island's off-shore islands (using sodium cyanide paste). There is significant controversy in New Zealand over the use of poison, particularly the poison known as \"1080" to control pests, and these clients are often in the media. | follow media coverage involving these clients, which has been extensive, and has generated extreme reactions either of support for these clients, or oppaosition to them. If these clients were to become aware of the Charge against the Applicant, then it is likely that they will distance themselves from the Applicant in order to ensure that public perception of them and their work were not tainted in any way. 10. 11 12, 13. 14. - If the Applicant lost these clients, this would represent a catastrophic drop in revenue to the Applicant and almost certainly result in the Applicant having to cease to do business. On behalf of the Applicant, | have not told the clients about the Charge, nor do | intend to as | believe and the Applicant believes that it would have a very serious detrimental financial effect on the Applicant. | also believe and the Applicant believes that it has a very strong defence to the Charge as the Applicant had an effective and authorised chemical disposal system in place for mercury, which it followed. Even though | believe and the Applicant believes that the Applicant will not be found to be guilty of the Charge, such is the sensitivity of these clients that it is likely that the Applicant merely being charged will be enough of a dis- incentive for these clients to continue to place orders with the Applicant. | refer to Janelle's affidavit sworn and filed in support of the Applicant's Notice of Application. Janelle's income is essential to the Applicant's business. | confirm on behalf of the Applicant that if Janelle were to lose her job, it would mean that the Applicant would have to cease trading. Attached and marked \"A\" is a copy of the Applicant's most recent financial statements showing the regular injection of capital from Janelle's salary and demonstrating that in the absence of such injections, the Applicant would struggle to continue in business. Publication of the Applicant's name in relation to the Charge would also cause extreme hardship to me personally because it would mean the end of the Applicant as a business. | started this business and have developed a significant portion of my life to building it up and keeping it going. My work for the Applicant is my only source of employment and is a specialist role, for which there is no obvious equivalent inAuckland. 15. Further, Janelle and | have built up equity in the Applicant over the last 10 years. Over this growth period | have forgone a large salary, and Janelle has contributed from her salary, so the success of the Applicant represents to us not only an immediate income but also ourinvestment and future savings. A failure of the Applicant represents, for me, more than simply the loss of a job. Quite simply, its failure would be catastrophic for Janelle and my financial futures. We are nearing retirement age and still have a significant mortgage over our home. The thought of having to rebuild our financial future is extremely daunting. For the reasons | have outlined above, | therefore ask the Court to grant the Applicant continued name suppression. A | JANELLE CALLAHER of Howick, legal executive and company director, swear: 1. | am a legal executive in the Auckland law firm of Chandler Hammett Thomson, one of the biggest three law firms in New Zealand (the firm). | am also a director and shareholder of the Applicant and the wife of the Applicant's Managing director, KEVIN GEORGE CALLAHER (Kevin). We have been married for just under 25 years. As a director, | am aware that the Applicant has been charged under s 15(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (discharge of contaminants onto land in circumstances which may result in the water being contaminated) (Charge), that the Applicant has denied the Charge, and that the Applicant has been granted interim name suppression in relation to the Charge. | make this affidavit in support of the Applicant's application for continued name suppression in respect of the Charge. | have read Kevin's affidavit dated (one week ago) and so far as | have personal knowledge of the matters in that affidavit, | confirm its contents. | believe that the Applicant should have continued name suppression because | believe that without it, the Applicant and | will suffer extreme hardship. | consider myself to be a champion of the environment. | am a legal executive in the resource management team of a prominent law firm. | love my job. | have an impeccable work record and | am highly regarded by my colleagues and the firm's clients. If the Applicant's name is published, my identity could easily be ascertained. Despite my excellent work record, | believe | would probably lose my job if my name were to be revealed. | believe the risk of harm to the firm's reputation in being associated with me, particularly given that | work inresource 10. management, would be such that the firm would feel obliged to protect itself and terminate my employment. | refer to the affidavit in support filed by PATRICK JOHN LOGAN, the Managing Partner of the firm and my supervisor, | believe that losing my job in this way would make it very difficult for me to get another job as a legal executive in resource management, which is a specialised area of law requiring specialised knowledge skills. | have built up those skills and that knowledge for over 10 years. If | lose my job because name suppression is not granted to the Applicant, it would be devastating to me personally. Publication of the Applicant's name in relation to the Charge would also cause extreme hardship to me, and to the Applicant because it would mean the end of the Applicant as a business. Kevin's work for the Applicant is his only source of employment and is a specialist role, for which there is no easy equivalent in Auckland, and Kevin and | rely quite heavily on his income from the Applicant. The Applicant also represents a decade's worth of investment from Kevin and myself and its failure would seriously prejudice our financial futures and retirements. Furthermore, for a long time, | have been a trustee for a local charitable trust, the Environmental Rehabilitation Charitable Trust (\"ERCT\"), that supports the rehabilitation {including pest eradication) and subsequent protection of damaged environments in our community. It is work that | feel very strongly about because | think the environment needs protecting. The media is always interested in ERCT's activities, and not in a good way. The media would jump on any chance they get to write negative stories about ERCT. Public opinion tends to be divided around the use of chemicals to rehabilitate and protect environments, and therefore negative publicity for ERCT is always a hot topic. Three months ago one -3- of the areas that we were monitoring in the community was the subject of a 1080 poison drop for pest control. There has been intense media interest in ERCT as a result of this activity. | believe that if the Applicant's name had not been suppressed that the media would have picked up on it because of my connection to ERCT and that it would likely be a major news item. | think that this would be unfair because other individuals would not have their name published in a major news item for their association with a charge like the one the Applicant isfacing. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRN 20xx/004/5555 UNDER THE Criminal Procedure Act 2011 IN THE MATTER of an application to suppress identity of defendant under s 200 BETWEEN A Applicant AND Auckland Council Respondent AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW JOHN ROBERTS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF OPPOSITION BY INFORMANT TO APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT FOR CONTINUED NAME SUPPRESSION SWORN (THREE DAYS BEFORE HEARING DATE) s | MATTHEW JOHN ROBERTS, Company Director of Island Bay, Wellington swear: 1. | am the sole director and shareholder of a company called CHEMICALS UNION REMOVALS LIMITED (my company). My company is an established chemicals removal business of 20 years standing based in Island Bay, Wellington. A significant portion of our work is identical to that of [A], the Applicant in this matter. 2. | oppose the Applicant's name being suppressed. | want the Applicant to take responsibility for its actions and to be held accountable. The Applicant conducts its business in the same industry community as me, and | think that everyone should know what the Applicant is charged with. 3. | know of the Applicant, as | know of all the participants (there are only a few in the North Island) in this highly specialised and competitive industry. Attached as \"A\" is an extract from the Chemical Industries Association New Zealand's website showing corporate players in the North Island who deal in cyanide processing. 4. There is no connection between the Applicant and the business. However, the similarities between our names have meant that my company and the Applicant have been frequently confused with one another over the years. Several times a year | get enquiries from prospective new clients and suppliers based in Auckland, and have even had people drop in to my company's premises, mistakenly believing they are contacting or visiting [A]. This is a waste of my time because the field of operations of my company is in the lower half of the North Island, not Auckland/the Auckland region. 5. | believe that we are often confused because of the similarity of my company's name and the Applicant's name. 6. | am aware that the Applicant has been charged with a Resource Management Act offence (\"Charge\"). | know this because one of the 3. Auckland District Court staff inadvertently copied me into email correspondence about the Charge. My company's email address and the Applicant''s email address are similar as well. Mine s enquiries@CURL.com; the Applicant's is enquiries@CUL.com. . I believe that if the Applicant is not named there is an increased likelihood that people will speculate who the allegedly offending company is. If people are aware only of the Applicant's industry, then it is possible that people may get mixed up and think it is my company that is facing the Charge. . | believe | should be able to positively assert that my company had nothing to do with the charge by identifying that it is CUL that stands accused, not CURL. . | believe that if people think it is my company that this will damage my company's and my reputation. My company has done nothing wrong. It should be, and | should be, protected from rumour and innuendo