New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freedom of expression (s14 nzbora)

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2021

BAILEY v THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 3168

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3168
Court

High Court

The application for interim orders was declined because the public interest in allowing a properly conducted disciplinary investigation to proceed outweighed the applicant's asserted prejudice; there was no demonstrated irreversible prejudice, the Committee offered an opportunity to respond and any legal errors can be remedied in the substantive judicial review, so the balance of convenience disfavourstaying the investigation.
30 Nov 2018

H v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2018] NZHC 3137 [30 November 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3137
Court

High Court

Court accepted respondent's concession that the use of pseudonyms breached s27 NZBORA but found no breach of s14 or s16 NZBORA. Relief beyond that already provided in Chief Executive of MSD v L was unnecessary: no declaration was required given existing precedent and remedial steps taken, mandamus/mandatory injunction was either unavailable or unnecessary, and public law damages were not merited because the conduct was not egregious and effective remedies (including merits appeals to the SSAA) addressed prejudice.
7 May 2018

PHILLIP JOHN SMITH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZSC 40

Citation

[2018] NZSC 40
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the legal question whether s14 extends to wearing a hairpiece was unlikely to be outcome‑determinative in this case, the matter was moot after permission to wear the hairpiece was restored, and resolution of related s23(5) issues would require factual findings inappropriate to decide on appeal.
1 Mar 2018

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v SMITH [2018] NZCA 24

Citation

[2018] 2 NZLR 899
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the respondent's wish to wear a wig did not engage s14 NZBORA because the conduct did not convey or attempt to convey meaning to others; it was aimed at private self‑esteem and did not amount to protected expression, so the High Court's conclusion that s14 was engaged was reversed.
16 Mar 2017

SMITH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 463

Citation

[2017] 2 NZLR 704
Court

High Court

The hairpiece qualified as expressive conduct engaging s14 NZBORA; the Prison Director failed to take that right into account and did not conduct or record any s5 assessment of whether revocation was a justified limitation; failure to take this mandatory consideration made the decision unlawful and it was quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration with NZBORA considerations addressed.
10 Aug 2016

B v ALA [2016] NZCA 385

Citation

[2016] NZCA 385
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to appeal was declined because the proposed legal questions lacked sufficient general or public importance and were factually without merit given the Employment Court's findings that the information was not publicly available and that the impugned statements fell within the scope of the settlement confidentiality obligations; moreover the compliance orders were narrowed to be no broader than necessary.
4 Jun 2015

WATSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 1227

Citation

(2015) 10 HRNZ 505
Court

High Court

The Chief Executive's decision to prohibit face-to-face interviews was unreasonable because it restricted the mode of communication without any rational connection to the stated aim of protecting victims: written communication remained permitted and could produce the same distress; prisoners retain a qualified s14 right to seek media interviews to raise alleged miscarriages of justice; accordingly the decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
1 Nov 2006

FARDELL V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE CORONER'S COURT AT NORTH SHORE AND AUCKLAND HC AK CIV 2006-404-3638

Citation

openlaw-48e1ca18_7094_4c5d_9b88_9b8e3e3a7ab8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Coroner erred by unduly fettering the s25(2) discretion through disproportionate emphasis on open justice and natural justice; coronial discretion must account for personal privacy, decency and the differing inquisitorial character of inquests, and where private, irrelevant or privileged material outweighs public interest in publication a suppression order is justified — accordingly the Court set aside the Coroner's refusal and exercised the discretion afresh to suppress specified personal and photographic evidence (Schedule A and exhibits).