New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Open justice

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2023

CONNOR SEAN CLAYTON NEVIN v R [2023] NZSC 160

Citation

[2023] NZSC 160
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed an extension of time but refused leave to appeal because the High Court correctly applied settled law: s 200(2)(f) does not automatically mandate suppression nor was it misread to require extreme hardship in this case, s 202(4) does not create a presumption for suppression of a defendant, and the High Court reasonably exercised its discretion on the facts where risks to the school were limited and mitigable and the public interest and victim's views outweighed suppression.
9 Nov 2023

RAU PAENGA LIMITED v CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3144

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3144
Court

High Court

The court declined access because documents relating to proceedings under the Arbitration Act are subject to a rules-based restriction and the relevant balancing of r 12 factors resulted in confidentiality, commercial sensitivity and the orderly administration of justice outweighing the open justice interest, particularly given the judgment already disclosed sufficient public information.
1 Nov 2023

VAN BEYNEN v BIRCHFIELD [2023] NZHC 3072

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3072
Court

High Court

On fresh assessment the appellant proved the District Court judge erred: the evidential material did not support a real and appreciable risk of 'extreme hardship' under s 200(2)(a) CPA, so the statutory threshold was not met and interim name suppression could not be justified; accordingly the appeal is allowed and suppression is set aside.
13 Oct 2023

ALT NEW ZEALAND LTD & ORS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 2883

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2883
Court

High Court

The application for access was dismissed because the requester was a private commercial actor whose asserted interest did not give open justice sufficient weight to override substantial privacy and confidentiality interests of non-parties and non-public-facing officials; additionally, inadvertent disclosure of privileged material did not waive privilege and the respondent was granted leave to redact and refile the affidavits.
14 Sept 2023

NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v TINGEY [2023] NZHC 2563

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2563
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Tribunal's 30 May 2023 minute unlawfully contradicted and sought to narrow an earlier unredacted 17 May 2023 order made under s 240 that prohibited publication of the complainant's name and any personal information that might lead to identification; the 17 May 2023 order remained in force under s 240(2) until revoked on application, so the 30 May minute was reversed and set aside, and the High Court ordered publication of the complainant's name and any personal information that might lead to identification in reports of the proceeding be forbidden.
18 Aug 2023

SIGNUM HOLDINGS LIMITED v OKUORA HOLDINGS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2252

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2252
Court

High Court

The Judge refused the broad non-publication orders because they were unnecessary to protect commercial confidentiality and would unduly impede open justice, but accepted that some filed material is confidential and therefore ordered that no non-party may access the court file without an order of a High Court Judge and that Synlait and a2MC must be notified and heard on any access application; interim non-publication orders were withdrawn and a reporter's access application was referred to a High Court Judge.
16 Aug 2023

R v MRL [2023] NZHC 2203

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2203
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's documented moderate depressive disorder, expert opinion that publication would likely precipitate serious dysregulation and increase self-harm risk, and the late stage of pre-trial preparation such that publicity would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial, the court concluded the s200 threshold was met (real risk to fair trial) and, on balance, protection of fair trial rights outweighed open justice; suppression was ordered and made reviewable at any time.
27 Jun 2023

SMITHEY v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2023] NZHC 1607

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1607
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's factual findings and acceptance of expert evidence that the horse experienced pain and distress, found the identified aggravating factors and that mitigating factors were insufficient to make the consequences of conviction out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, and therefore dismissed the appeal against refusal of discharge without conviction and refused name suppression.
26 Jun 2023

JAMES HAY WALLACE v R [2023] NZSC 74

Citation

[2023] NZSC 74
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court is not satisfied the requisite hardship thresholds were met nor that a miscarriage of justice would result; the Court of Appeal correctly applied the statutory tests and would have exercised its discretion against suppression given the seriousness of offending and open justice, so interim suppression was extended only briefly to allow preparation and lapses at 2 pm on 28 June 2023.
19 Jun 2023

R v BENBOW [2023] NZHC 1521

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1521
Court

High Court

The published episodes, assessed on content and character, did not meet the statutory threshold in s199C(1) CPA of creating a real and appreciable risk of prejudice to a fair retrial; the podcast was generally neutral, accurate and educational, and although accessible, its existence alone did not justify a takedown; accordingly the takedown application was refused.