New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Balancing public interest

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2022

R v EF and FG [2022] NZHC 1741

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1741
Court

High Court

The judge found the threshold for non‑publication crossed in respect of EF because publication would create an appreciable risk that third parties would exploit publication to dissuade particular clients from continuing EF's instruction, producing extreme hardship to those clients beyond ordinary consequences; on discretionary balancing open justice yielded and a non‑publication order forbidding publication of EF's name, address and occupation was made under s200(1).
2 Aug 2019

Mr. R v NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2019] NZHC 1878

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1878
Court

High Court

The court refused permanent name suppression because the medical evidence did not establish a real and appreciable causal risk that publication of the offender's name would directly cause extreme hardship (severe suffering or privation) to his mother beyond the distress normally associated with publication; the public interest in open justice and the seriousness of the offending outweighed the asserted risks, although interim suppression was continued pending the appeal period or any appeal outcome.
3 May 2019

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED v STAPLES [2019] NZCA 133

Citation

[2019] NZCA 133
Court

Court of Appeal

The court held s 68(1) protection applies and s 68(2) did not justify disclosure because the respondents failed to show a significant public interest in knowing the informants' identities relevant to the defamation defences; by contrast there was a substantial public interest in protecting journalistic sources and in media reporting on systemic issues arising from Christchurch earthquake claims; therefore the Associate Judge's order for unredacted disclosure was quashed insofar as disclosure would identify informants.
6 Jul 2015

R (CA340/2015) V R [2015] NZCA 287

Citation

[2015] NZCA 287
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Judge did not err in concluding publication would not be likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair retrial and, even if the threshold were satisfied, the second‑stage balancing exercise favoured refusing continued name suppression because the appellant was convicted, public interest and open justice weighed heavily, and continuation would fuel speculation; appeal dismissed and interim suppression continued only temporarily on terms set out in paras 37–38.

New Zealand Case Law

R v EF and FG [2022] NZHC 1741

Mr. R v NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2019] NZHC 1878

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED v STAPLES [2019] NZCA 133

R (CA340/2015) V R [2015] NZCA 287