State v Morgan [2010] FJHC 86; HAR004.2010 (12 March 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Revisional Case No: HAR004 of 2010

BETWEEN:

THE STATE
Applicant

AND:

EDWARD JOHN MORGAN
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27th January 2010
Date of Ruling: 12th March 2010

Counsel: Ms S. Puamau for State
Mr. V. Vosarogo for Respondent

RULING

[1] On 27 January 2010, I quashed the name suppression order made in favour of the respondent by the Magistrates’ Court. I now give my reasons.

[2] The respondent was charged with an offence of driving whilst intoxicated. On 21 December 2009 he pleaded guilty to the charge.

[3] On 18 January 2010, he was sentenced to a fine of $200 in default 2 months imprisonment and was also disqualified from driving for 3 months. He applied for his name not to be published by the media because it could jeopardize his employment with a private company. The respondent worked as a human resources officer.

[4] The learned Magistrate granted the application and ordered his name to be suppressed from publication by the media.

[5] In a recent case of State v. Doreen Singh HAR005/09 Madigan J confirmed that the test for name suppression is whether the order is necessary:

(1) For the due administration of justice; or
(2) In order to serve the ends of justice.

[6] Madigan J further observed:

"... Public embarrassment as one’s judicial predicament is not reason enough to seek suppression of name. Despite the fundamental presumption of innocence, if a person’s actions bring suspicion upon him(her)self, then that person must bear the consequences of that behavior including having their affairs brought into the public arena. To allow this application would open the floodgates of name suppression by applicants who may wish to apply for high office, or to maybe one day read the news on Fiji One or any other similarly frivolous application."

[7] The observations of Madigan J are relevant to this case as well. When the respondent decided to violate the law, he must bear the consequences of his behavior. He cannot seek protection from the law to avoid embarrassment. The name suppression order granted in favour of him is neither necessary for the due administration of justice nor does it serve the interests of justice. The name suppression order in this case only serves the personal interests of the respondent.

[8] For these reasons, the name suppression order is quashed.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
12th March 2010

Solicitors:
Office of the DPP for State
Messrs. Vakaloloma & Associates for Respondent