SIEMER v THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 37/2012
Leave to appeal was granted solely on the certified question whether New Zealand courts have inherent jurisdiction to suppress criminal judgments; the Court held that if such jurisdiction exists any suppression order must be obeyed and breach can constitute contempt without proof of harm, and that absence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 37/2012
- Parties
- Appellant: Vincent Ross Siemer; Respondent: The Solicitor-General
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 July 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court; Decision Granting Leave on a Single Certified Question and Declining Others
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on the single certified question concerning inherent power to suppress judgments; leave refused on remaining grounds.
- Legal Topics
- Suppression of Judgments, Inherent Jurisdiction of Courts, Contempt for Breach of Court Orders, Fair Trial Issues, Prosecutorial Guidelines
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vincent Ross Siemer
Appellant
The Solicitor-General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court; Decision Granting Leave on a Single Certified Question and Declining Others
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases
- 2 Whether breach of a suppression order constitutes contempt without proof of harm or risk to fair trial
- 3 Whether contempt proceedings require prosecutorial guidelines or are equivalent to criminal prosecutions
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted solely on the certified question whether New Zealand courts have inherent jurisdiction to suppress criminal judgments; the Court held that if such jurisdiction exists any suppression order must be obeyed and breach can constitute contempt without proof of harm, and that absence of prosecutorial guidelines does not render contempt proceedings unlawful; other grounds including alleged miscarriage of justice were unarguable and leave was refused.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the single certified question concerning inherent power to suppress judgments; leave refused on remaining grounds.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted limited to whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases
- Leave to appeal refused on all other grounds advanced in the application
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SIEMER v THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 37/2012 [19 July 2012]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 37/2012[2012[ NZSC 57BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMERAppellantAND THE SOLICITOR-GENERALRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, Tipping and Chambers JJCounsel: T Ellis for AppellantM F Laracy and G J Robins for RespondentJudgment: 19 July 2012JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Leave to appeal is granted.B The approved ground is whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases.REASONS[1] We decline leave on the remaining issues advanced in the application for leave to appeal because we consider them to be unarguable.[2] If there is power for a court of criminal jurisdiction to suppress judgments, then it is clear any such order must be obeyed.1 If someone thinks an order too broad, the correct procedure would be to have the order reviewed, not to breach it and then to argue whether it should have been in the terms in which it was propounded. The Solicitor-General does not have to establish risk of a fair trial right1 Siemer v Solicitor-General [2010] NZSC 54, [2010] 3 NZLR 767 at [26].before the breach could constitute a contempt. The Solicitor-General does not have to prove harm in contempt proceedings brought on the basis of breach of a Court order. A lack of harm would be relevant, if at all, only to remedy.[3] It is also unarguable that the absence of prosecutorial guidelines renders contempt proceedings unlawful. Inherent in this submission is the idea that contempt proceedings are akin to a criminal prosecution. They are not, even though some of the safeguards of criminal proceedings are incorporated into the process.[4] The sentence does not involve a matter of general or public importance. Assuming the courts have jurisdiction to make suppression orders, then we do not consider the sentence imposed is a miscarriage of justice, still less "a substantial miscarriage of justice".Solicitors: N Dunning, Wellington for Appellant Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent