21 Nov 2023
Access to documents or parts of documents revealing details of Mr Exley's prison escape is to be withheld until after the sentencing hearing (1 February 2024) because, prior to the substantive hearing, the orderly and fair administration of justice outweighs the principle of open justice and freedom of information; those parts may be released after sentencing.
7 Dec 2022
Applicant failed to establish any threshold ground under s 200(2): the psychological report did not prove extreme hardship and the risk to a fair retrial was speculative; s 203 did not bar publication because the sexual complaint was found to be false in the context and the public interest in open justice outweighed any personal interest in suppression; appeal dismissed and interim suppression to lapse.
20 Oct 2022
The appellant failed to establish any s 200(2) threshold ground: social media commentary and speculative employment detriment do not amount to extreme hardship, and the risk to a fair trial is insufficient given existing publicity, the passage of time before trial, and judicial directions to jurors; accordingly interim name suppression was properly refused.
13 Apr 2022
The Supreme Court (majority) held the further diplomatic assurances and PRC responses — that the respondent would be detained and tried in Shanghai, that New Zealand consular visits during investigation would be permitted at least every 48 hours and on request, and assurances regarding judicial committee procedures and disclosure consistent with PRC domestic law — provided a reasonable basis for the Minister to be satisfied there were no substantial grounds to believe the respondent faced a real risk of torture or an unfair trial; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court…
28 Feb 2022
Access to judgments (other than bail decisions) is granted because they are the primary means of satisfying open justice and provide a self-contained public account, but bail decisions are not released under r 8(4)(a) as they lack ongoing public interest; certain additional suppressions and redactions are necessary to protect privacy, fair trial and an ongoing investigation, including a permanent name suppression and interim withholding or redaction of specific material (including four redacted paragraphs in R v X and recall/amendment and interim withholding of R v AB).
27 Jul 2021
The appellant failed to establish the statutory threshold under s 200(2) for extreme hardship or a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; on balance open justice and the public interest prevail and continued interim name suppression is not justified, so the appeal is dismissed.
4 Jun 2021
Diplomatic assurances may be considered to remove a real risk of torture or unfair trial but only following a three-stage assessment: (1) evaluate individual risk in light of general human rights situation, (2) assess the specificity and monitoring arrangements of assurances, and (3) assess likelihood assurances will be honoured; where deficiencies remain, the Minister must obtain further targeted assurances or information before ordering surrender.
24 Mar 2021
Publication of the defendant's name before any determination of admissibility of his prior convictions would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial because accessible 2014 online articles detail similar prior offending; judicial directions would not be sufficient to mitigate that risk; accordingly the threshold in s200(2)(d) is met and the court exercised its discretion to grant continued name suppression and related publication bans until the earlier of a determination admitting the prior convictions as propensity evidence or the commencement of trial.
17 Dec 2020
The application to continue name suppression was refused because the original suppression orders were time‑limited and not appealed, the speculative possibility of retrial does not create a sufficient real risk of prejudice to justify extending suppression under s200(2)(d), any jury retrial is unlikely and would itself be subject to pretrial controls including mode of trial considerations, and extensive prior publicity (including overseas publication) and the public interest in open justice outweigh the asserted prejudice.
15 Oct 2020
Publication of the appellant's identity would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; the statutory threshold under s 200(2) was met and, on balance, interim name suppression should be granted for a limited period to preserve fair trial rights until the sentencing indication hearing on 4 November 2020.