New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

In-court media coverage

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2021

READY v THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST [2021] NZHC 120

Citation

[2021] NZHC 120
Court

High Court

Leave was granted for a recognised NZME representative to attend the in‑chambers case management conference but applications to film, photograph or record sound were declined because chambers hearings are ordinarily not recorded, no exceptional circumstances justified departure from the rule given the early stage of proceedings and likelihood of suppression applications, and Wandering Films did not fall within the media definition in the Guidelines.
18 Mar 2020

CAIN & LOGAN v METTRICK & BOULT [2020] NZHC 545

Citation

[2020] NZHC 545
Court

High Court

The request to film, photograph and audio record the interlocutory hearing was declined because interlocutory hearings are presumptively held in chambers, no clear and compelling public interest was shown to justify media coverage, and the privacy and confidentiality interests of the parties and non‑parties and the risk of disclosure of commercially sensitive information outweighed open justice in this context.
15 Jan 2020

THOMPSON v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 13

Citation

[2020] NZHC 13
Court

High Court

The application by the Otago Daily Times to take photographs at the in‑chambers interlocutory hearing was declined because hearings in chambers are subject to the In‑Court Media Coverage Guidelines which prohibit electronic communication and photographing while a Judge is sitting, and the default position for interlocutory hearings is to be held in chambers to protect confidentiality while preserving publication of particulars and decisions unless otherwise ordered.
3 Apr 2019

R v TALBOT [2019] NZHC 676

Citation

[2019] NZHC 676
Court

High Court

The applications for leave to film, photograph or record sound of the defendant during sentencing were declined because the Guidelines require specific leave for such coverage, no special justification or foundation was provided to displace the usual restriction, and therefore permission to film/photograph/record the defendant during sentencing (or in the Judge's absence) was refused; otherwise standard conditions in Schedules 1–3 apply.
11 Dec 2018

KARLIE MARGARET SMITH v CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3180 [11 December 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3180
Court

High Court

The media applications to film, photograph or record the interlocutory hearing were refused because interlocutory applications are ordinarily heard in Chambers where privacy and confidentiality outweigh the open justice interest absent clear and compelling public interest reasons, the Guidelines and Rules prohibit electronic communication in Chambers, and no such compelling reasons existed on the facts before the Court.

New Zealand Case Law

READY v THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST [2021] NZHC 120

CAIN & LOGAN v METTRICK & BOULT [2020] NZHC 545

THOMPSON v INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 13

R v TALBOT [2019] NZHC 676

KARLIE MARGARET SMITH v CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3180 [11 December 2018]