New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freedom of expression

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2023

HUDSON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZCA 653

Citation

[2023] NZCA 653
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the proposed exercise of power under s 43(2) to restrict access to the specific magazines before the court was not a demonstrably justified limit on s 14 BORA: the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between access to those magazines and the asserted harms in the prison context; therefore the statutory power as applied to these magazines could not be sustained on the evidence. The Court declined to grant relief in respect of the initial officer's censorship because the appellant disavowed that relief and there was no directiv…
12 Oct 2023

GREENHORN v THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [2023] NZHC 2865

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2865
Court

High Court

The trespass notice issued to the applicant satisfied the statutory requirements of the Trespass Act and, given the unprecedented scale, duration and escalation of the parliamentary protest and the resulting public order and safety concerns, the limitation on the applicant's rights was reasonable and demonstrably justified under s5 of the Bill of Rights Act; the withdrawal of the notice on 30 March 2023 was lawful and reasonable; the Court declined to grant any declaration of unlawfulness, cannot compel an apology, and declined to award costs against the applicant despite her unsuccessful cla…
19 Jun 2023

R v BENBOW [2023] NZHC 1521

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1521
Court

High Court

The published episodes, assessed on content and character, did not meet the statutory threshold in s199C(1) CPA of creating a real and appreciable risk of prejudice to a fair retrial; the podcast was generally neutral, accurate and educational, and although accessible, its existence alone did not justify a takedown; accordingly the takedown application was refused.
14 Mar 2023

MALCOLM BRUCE MONCRIEF_x001e_SPITTLE v REGIONAL FACILITIES AUCKLAND LIMITED [2023] NZSC 20

Citation

[2023] NZSC 20
Court

Supreme Court

The Court awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondents, reflecting a $30,000 ordinary award reduced by 70% consistent with the prior agreed reduction applied in the Court of Appeal, because the proceedings had features of genuine public interest and the appellants had limited (procedural) success but overall the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies.
27 Feb 2023

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND v FILM AND LITERATURE BOARD OF REVIEW [2023] NZHC 319

Citation

[2023] NZHC 319
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the appeal: the Board did not err in law. Depiction of sexual conduct with children does not automatically equal promotion or support under s 3(2); the Moonen finding that material 'normalised' abuse was a fact‑specific evaluative judgment, not a mandatory legal element. The Board lawfully concluded the texts were not deemed objectionable under s 3(2) but were objectionable under the holistic s 3(3)/(4) assessment and permissibly imposed an R18 restriction as a proportionate response to identified harms.
14 Dec 2022

KUMAR v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ARA POUTAMA AOTEAROA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 3414

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3414
Court

High Court

Court found Corrections acted arbitrarily in failing to send two of the applicant's outgoing letters recorded in the unit register but absent from the general and prison withheld-mail registers, resulting in an unreasonable infringement of the applicant's s14 NZBORA right; by contrast Corrections lawfully withheld two other items under s108 on security/safety grounds, and failure to record a withheld item in the prisoner's property register contravened internal policy though that policy is not a statutory obligation.
5 Dec 2022

HOBAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 3235

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3235
Court

High Court

s61 is discriminatory under s19(1) because it affords remedial protection against hate speech on racial grounds but excludes other prohibited grounds such as sexual orientation; s19(2) does not cover s61 because that subsection targets affirmative measures to assist or advance disadvantaged groups; however the underinclusive discriminatory effect of s61 is a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s5 because s61 implements New Zealand's international obligations under ICERD and ICCPR and targeted remedial legislation is legitimate and practicable, therefore no declaration of inconsisten…
22 Oct 2021

LAWYERS FOR CLIMATE ACTION NZ INCORPORATED v THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION [2021] NZHC 2832

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2832
Court

High Court

Pleadings may be published now because open justice and freedom of expression outweigh any risk to the orderly and fair administration of justice and no privacy or confidentiality issues arose; however publication of affidavit and other evidence before the hearing is not ordered because timing affects public understanding and open justice has greater weight during the substantive hearing, so evidence and submissions may be published only from the commencement of the hearing and subject to directions of the trial judge.
30 Apr 2021

MONCRIEF_x001e_SPITTLE v REGIONAL FACILITIES AUCKLAND LIMITED [2021] NZCA 142

Citation

[2021] 2 NZLR 795
Court

Court of Appeal

RFAL's cancellation of the venue hire agreement was amenable to judicial review and engaged BORA rights (freedom of expression and peaceful assembly); however, on the facts the decision to cancel was rational, proportionate and a justified limitation under s 5 of BORA given the escalated security and evacuation risks, Axiomatic's failure to disclose security arrangements and the absence of adequate guarantees; both appellants had standing; High Court costs order required reduction.
21 Apr 2021

PHILLIP JOHN SMITH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZSC 34

Citation

[2021] NZSC 34
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the Court of Appeal lawfully applied regs 108 and 109 consistent with freedom of expression, reasonably relied on evidence and inferences about victim distress and prison management, and correctly concluded that withholding approval was not a disproportionate limit on the applicant's rights; no matter of public importance or miscarriage of justice warranted further appeal.