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 …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
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 …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