New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Open justice principle

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2023

R v CORKRAN [2023] NZHC 2743

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2743
Court

High Court

The court refused disclosure of Crown witness statements because the statements contain untested and unsworn allegations that have not been given in open court, the proceedings have been permanently stayed so the material will never be tested at trial, and the balance of open justice against privacy, the defendant's health and the orderly and fair administration of justice favoured non-disclosure; however, in order to respect open justice the court granted access to Crown charge notices and any Crown legal advice on the court file.
12 May 2023

ROBERTS v CRESSWELL [2023] NZCA 168

Citation

[2023] NZCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for access was refused because the applicant, a non‑party, failed to establish a good reason under r7 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017; the requested submissions contained confidential sensitive information protected by ss 11B–11D of the Family Court Act 1980; and the bundle of authorities is not part of the formal court record.
26 Oct 2022

MICHELLE BOAG v R [2022] NZSC 125

Citation

[2022] NZSC 125
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues advanced were either questions of fact specific to this case or not of general or public importance, there was no real risk of miscarriage in the decisions below, and the courts below lawfully applied the tests for undue hardship and exceptional circumstances; suppression was continued briefly until 2 pm 28 October 2022 to allow preparation for publication.
3 Aug 2022

R v NIKLAS GEBHARDT [2022] NZHC 1914

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1914
Court

High Court

The application for permanent suppression was declined because the defendant failed to meet the high statutory threshold of 'extreme hardship' under s200(2)(a) and, on discretionary balancing, the public interest in open justice and transparency about prosecutorial charging and withdrawal decisions outweighed the speculative or non‑quantified risk of psychological harm absent compelling evidence of likely decompensation.
4 Jul 2022

SIEMER v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2022] NZHC 1575

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1575
Court

High Court

The application for the transcript was granted because the applicant specifically identified how the transcript could support his appeal against the costs judgment, there was no delay, the transcript was likely short (no existing transcript) and the applicant agreed to bear the production costs; on balance the factors under the Access to Court Documents Rules favoured release upon payment of the prescribed fee.
1 Apr 2022

SMITH v THE FLETCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED [2022] NZCA 107

Citation

[2022] NZCA 107
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was refused because the delay was significant, much of the delay was attributable to the applicant's choices and pursuit of alternative hopeless remedies, the further disclosure request duplicated an earlier refused application and amounted to an abuse of process, and the interests of justice did not require granting an indulgence given prejudice and the disproportionate burden of further disclosure.
11 Nov 2021

R v A, B, C [2021] NZHC 3050

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3050
Court

High Court

Permanent name suppression granted for A because medical evidence showed a real and appreciable risk that publication would cause extreme hardship and endanger his safety; suppression for B and C granted because identification of any one would likely identify the others (s200(2)(f)) and the Crown offered no evidence leading to dismissal; Northpower's separate name suppression declined but publication of a specified fact regarding Northpower was suppressed.
16 Jun 2021

JOHN GOODWIN SMITH v ELECTRIX LIMITED [2021] NZSC 64

Citation

[2021] NZSC 64
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the sole issue for this Court was whether the Court of Appeal should have granted an extension of time to appeal; the Court of Appeal correctly applied the established principles (including Almond v Read) and the narrower factual significance of the applicant's argument did not meet the criteria for leave to this Court; the applicant retains the remedy of applying to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal Electrix (No 3).
24 Dec 2020

PQW v MALLARD [2020] NZHC 3531

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3531
Court

High Court

The Court held that the 22 December 2020 judgment would not be recalled immediately; interim suppression orders remain in force because they were not time-limited and the proceedings are not concluded; the applicant must file a formal application and supporting affidavit complying with HCR 7.19/7.20 by 18 January 2021 with a synopsis by 26 January 2021; the matter is set for a two-hour hearing in the first week of February 2021 to determine recall and any final suppression/sealing orders, applying the limited grounds for recall from Horowhenua County v Nash (No.2).
30 Oct 2020

GOLD STAR INVEST LIMITED v V [2020] NZHC 2848

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2848
Court

High Court

The Court held that open justice remains the fundamental principle and the evidence did not establish exceptional specific adverse consequences to justify a general non-publication order; however, because the matter was at an early interlocutory stage the Court ordered limited restrictions: public and media are prevented from accessing the court file or documents relating to the proceedings without referral to a judge for direction, and the defendants' names are not to be published pending further order, while interlocutory decisions should be published.