DOTCOM V ATTORNEY-GENERAL MEDIA HC AK CIV 2012-404-001928

DOTCOM V ATTORNEY-GENERAL MEDIA HC AK CIV 2012-404-001928

Suppression orders are justified only where publication would materially imperil safety or operational effectiveness; applying that test the Court granted non-publication of identifying particulars of AOS/STG members and suppression of STG call signs (except Zero Alpha) and a minute-by-minute operational plan portion of the Request for Assistance (page 108 up to 'Legal Authority'), but refused broader suppression of the remaining document material as not operationally sensitive; interim continuation of non-publication for the two documents was ordered to permit consideration of appeal.

Citation
openlaw-ac494986_bf1b_4261_a191_52119f1d79b4.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: KIM DOTCOM; Second Plaintiff: FINN BATATO; Third Plaintiff: MATHIAS ORTMANN; Fourth Plaintiff: BRAM VAN DER KOLK; First Defendant: ATTORNEY-GENERAL; Second Defendant: THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTHSHORE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Hearing on Suppression/non Publication Application
Outcome
Application for suppression/non-publication granted in part and refused in part; interim non-publication of two documents continued pending further order
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Non Publication, Open Justice, Operational Security, Police Tactics, Call Signs, Privacy
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Police Powers Administrative Law Media Law Suppression Orders Non Publication Open Justice +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KIM DOTCOM

First Plaintiff

FINN BATATO

Second Plaintiff

MATHIAS ORTMANN

Third Plaintiff

BRAM VAN DER KOLK

Fourth Plaintiff

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant

THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTHSHORE

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Hearing on Suppression/non Publication Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confidentiality/non-publication orders could be justified in civil proceedings given open justice principle
  2. 2 Whether publication of STG/AOS identities or call signs would imperil safety or operational effectiveness
  3. 3 Whether the specific documents sought to be suppressed contained operationally sensitive material

Ratio Decidendi

Suppression orders are justified only where publication would materially imperil safety or operational effectiveness; applying that test the Court granted non-publication of identifying particulars of AOS/STG members and suppression of STG call signs (except Zero Alpha) and a minute-by-minute operational plan portion of the Request for Assistance (page 108 up to 'Legal Authority'), but refused broader suppression of the remaining document material as not operationally sensitive; interim continuation of non-publication for the two documents was ordered to permit consideration of appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for suppression/non-publication granted in part and refused in part; interim non-publication of two documents continued pending further order

Orders

  • Non-publication of any identifying particulars (names, images) of members of the Armed Offenders Squad and Special Tactics Group
  • Non-publication/suppression of all STG call signs (call signs of AOS except Zero Alpha suppressed only as to STG)