A pie seller who denies receiving a small amount of clothing after nearly 2,000 samples worth approximately $870,000 were taken from fashion designer Dame Trelise Cooper’s premises, is fighting to keep her name suppressed.
In late October, the famed fashion designer’s showroom in Auckland was robbed, which was a “kick in the guts” for Cooper’s 100 employees and impacted a fashion night for Tauranga’s breast cancer charity.
The woman, 45, has denied receiving $1,500 worth of goods, and was dismissed by Judge Eddie Paul during a June hearing.
Her attorney, Christina Hallaway, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, where she said her clients were not currently trading the pie business. Justice Matthew Muir maintained his decision.
* Trelise Cooper burglary: Man participates in branded clothing raid
* Trelise Cooper burglary: fourth person charged in clothing raid
* Trelise Cooper burglary: Arrest warrant for woman after failing to appear in court
* Trelise Cooper burglary: Man denies allegations of stolen clothes
At an earlier hearing, a 42-year-old man who previously claimed he was “known” in the television industry confessed to two charges of fraud and one charge of burglary.
On Tuesday in the Supreme Court, Hallaway claimed it was only a small percentage of the stolen items that her client allegedly received.
“This is more unique than what we have a low allegation against” [the woman], it seems to be bolstered by the high-profile company. ”
Hallaway said if her client’s name were published, she could be targeted by social media that would be unregulated and harm due process rights.
“Anyone can publish anything at any time,” Hallaway said.
Crown Prosecutor Pavee Patanasiri said the publication of the woman’s name was not an extreme hardship.
“These items were from a leading New Zealand fashion designer and are a great value,” says Patanasiri.
The court also heard that the police are still counting the recovered items and that the estimated value is currently about $870,000.
Patanasiri said there is no real risk of a fair trial if the defendant’s name is published and there is no evidence for social commentary.
Justice Muir said the complainant opposed continuing the crackdown, given that suspicions had been raised against her employees.
Judge Paul previously said the break-in spoke for itself and that there was a genuine public interest in disclosing the names of the suspects.
At an earlier hearing, a 42-year-old man who previously claimed he was “known” in the television industry confessed to two charges of robbery and one charge of burglary. He will be sentenced in September.
Florist Andrea Nicole Edwards has denied receiving $500,000 worth of stolen goods and will appear in court with the cake decorator in February.
In May, a 26-year-old woman was charged with receiving $8,000 worth of Trelise Cooper branded clothing.
The break-in was discovered when staff returned after a weekend, Cooper previously said stuff.
She said staff were there until 4 p.m. Saturday and the robbery happened some time after.
“We arrived at work Monday morning and there were no samples in the sample room.”
Cooper said a monster coordinator was going to pull samples.
“It was a slow dawn that, ‘Oh god, they’re all gone’.”