CHIEF JUSTICE MAY HEAR NAME APPEAL

Auckland: The lawyer for the American billionaire drug smuggler has
dropped her appeal disputing the New Zealand Herald's right to try to
overturn her client's name suppression.

The High Court at Auckland indicated at yesterday's appeal hearing
that it could make Chief Justice Sian Elias available to hear the
case under a judicial review, instead of it dragging through the
courts.

Justice Minister Phil Goff stepped into the fray yesterday, saying
that while he could not comment on the specifics of the case, he
would send a "non-specific but strong message" to the judiciary that
no account ought to be taken of a person's status or financial worth
in sentencing.

"The public's trust in the judicial system depends on their
confidence that a person's status or financial worth is irrelevant to
the treatment they receive from the court," he said.

In the High Court at Auckland yesterday afternoon, lawyer Marie
Dyhrberg told Justice Williams she could not make any submissions on
her appeal. She wrote her reasons in a memorandum handed to Justice
Williams. They were not discussed in court.

Outside the court, she declined to say why she had not made submissions.

The newspaper has applied for the right to publish the name of the
American, who was granted name suppression when discharged without
conviction earlier this month from Otahuhu District Court after
admitting importing more than 100g of cannabis plant and resin.

But for the past five days, lawyers have been fighting two High Court
appeals lodged by Ms Dyhrberg - one trying to prevent the Herald
seeing her written submissions on the man's case and the other
disputing the paper's legal right to apply to overturn the name
suppression.

Herald lawyer Campbell Clark said he envisaged the case would now go
back to the Otahuhu District Court for Judge David Harvey to hear the
Herald's application.

A date for the application had yet to be set but was likely to be
Tuesday next week. However, during yesterday's hearing, Justice
Williams discussed the possibility of a judicial review of the case
with both parties.

He said a judicial review seemed a more "direct route" than an
application to the district court and resulting possible appeals, and
could be heard within the next few days.