VINCENT ROSS SIEMER [2019] NZSC 52

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER [2019] NZSC 52 [21 May 2019]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC MA 4/2019[2019] NZSC 52IN THE MATTER OF Application by VINCENT ROSS SIEMERfor Access to Court DocumentsJudgment: 21 May 2019JUDGMENT OF O'REGAN JThe application for review of the Registrar's decision is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The Registrar has referred to me the following communication from theapplicant named above:Kieron,Your legal position that public access to the formal court record in civilappeals is not by right is rejected as wrong in law. Moreover, I consider itobstructive.Due to your refusal to appropriately address my request for copies of theformal court record in Guy v Bank of New Zealand and Slavich v The QueenI require a judicial ruling as to whether my request for the formal court recordfalls under R8(5) of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules2017, along with the mandatory reasons if a plain reading of R8(5) is no longerto be considered applicable to the Supreme Court.I relevantly record for the judge determining this issue:1. I have evidence the Supreme Court and its Registrar are usingGuy v Bank of New Zealand and Slavich v The Queen as legalauthority to disavow statutory rights of review, and this broader legalapplication of each ruling alone provides cogent justification fortransparency into how this new law was handed down.2. As you have confirmed in your email these judgments accuratelyrecord what "were considered by the judges", copies of the formalcourt record to be provided [to] me in both Guy and Slavich wouldinclude the appeal indexes, their respective applications to theSupreme Court, notice as to the date when and venue where Mr Guywas heard "in person" and Mr Slavich was heard "in person", as wellas the transcript recording their in person legal submissions.3. I wish to be given notice and be heard, and consider theAttorney-General should similarly be invited to make legalsubmissions, if the Judge considering my request is predisposed togenerally disavow the public right provided by R8(5) of the SeniorCourts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 in response to myapplication made under R8(5).[2] The applicant is a vexatious litigant, having been the subject of an order madeby the High Court under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908.1[3] The request referred to in the applicant's communication was as follows:Please provide by return email copies of the following information from thepublic court record –1. The applications upon which the full bench convened and acted withits judgments Slavich v The Queen [2005] NZSC 195, Greer v Smith[2015] NZSC 196 and Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZSC 127(individually referred to as "Slavich", "Greer" and "Guy", andcollectively as "Judgments")?2. The court notices, party submissions, transcripts and minutes if theyexist which relate to each Judgment?3. The dates and times at which the full court convened to determine theissues decided in Slavich, in Greer and in Guy?4. The list of parties heard by the Supreme Court on the issuesdetermined in Slavich, in Greer and in Guy?5. The venue in which the parties appeared "in person" where theintituling of the Judgments records this was the case?[4] The Registrar responded to the request by advising that the applications forreview in Slavich v R,2 Greer v Smith3 and Guy v Bank of New Zealand4 wereconsidered by the Judges recorded on the relevant judgments but there was no hearing.1 Attorney-General v Siemer [2014] NZHC 859. The scope of the order was expanded on appeal:Siemer v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 43, [2016] NZAR 411.2 Slavich v R [2015] NZSC 195, (2015) 23 PRNZ 117.3 Greer v Smith [2015] NZSC 196, (2015) 22 PRNZ 785.4 Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZSC 127.(This meant items 3, 4 and 5 of the request were inapplicable). He advised that thedocuments the applicant sought in relation to Slavich and Guy, other than thejudgments, were not available as of right and it was necessary for the applicant toprovide reasons for seeking access to these documents and the purpose for whichaccess is sought and to set out any conditions (if access were to be provided) that theapplicant would be prepared to meet were a Judge to impose those conditions. Headvised that, as the Greer application had been made by the applicant, a copy of theapplication could be provided if required.[5] Insofar as the request related to Greer, it should not have been accepted forfiling, given the direction made in the Court's minute of 25 November 2016 as follows:[3] One aspect of the jurisdiction of the Court which is now engaged isits entitlement to deal with abuse of its processes. We say this given:(a) the repeated in-substance challenges to the judgment of18 December 2015 which come on top of the twounsuccessful recall applications;(b) the absence of any other apparent point to Mr Siemer's recentconduct; and(c) Mr Siemer's persistence in advancing s 28(3) argumentswhich have previously been rejected by us.[4] Accordingly, we direct the Registrar not to accept for filing any furtherapplication by Mr Siemer by way of, or relating to:(a) his application for access to Mr Greer's application for leaveto appeal;(b) challenge, direct or indirect, to the judgments of this Court of18 December 2015, 10 February 2016 or 10 March 2016;(c) the minutes of 20 October 2015, 28 October 2016 or9 November 2016; or(d) this minute.[6] To the extent that the applicant's request can be construed as an application toreview the Registrar's decision on the applicant's request in relation to Slavich andGuy, I uphold the Registrar's decision.[7] The applicant's request was made under r 8(5) of the Rules. Under r 8(5), amember of the public has the right to access the "formal court record", as defined inr 4. As the application in Slavich was dealt with on the papers and there was nohearing, the only document coming within the "formal court record" is the judgment,which is published on the Courts of New Zealand website.[8] The same analysis applies to Guy. In fact, the Registrar took a generousapproach in applying r 8(5) in relation to Guy. Rule 8(5) of the Rules applies toappeals. "Appeal" is defined in r 4 as including an application for leave to appeal.Guy was neither an appeal nor an application for leave.[9] The Registrar has correctly interpreted r 8(5).[10] The application for review of the Registrar's decision is therefore dismissed.