Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Robertson

[2014] NZHC 1621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000279 [2014] NZHC 1621

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

v

TONY DOUGLAS ROBERTSON

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	A Longdill for the Crown PJB Winter for Defendant
Judgment:	11 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J (Access to Court file - NZ Herald)

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 11 July 2014 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland.

PJB Winter, Auckland.

Copy to:

D Fisher, New Zealand Herald.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPT OF CORRECTIONS v ROBERTSON [2014] NZHC 1621 [11 July 2014]

[1]      I refer to my judgment of 2 July 2014.1     When I issued that judgment I understood that there were two requests from Television New Zealand in relation to the  psychologist’s  report.    The TVNZ  request  had  sought  only  the  report  of  a psychologist Ms Tolond.  I refused the TVNZ application.  I now appreciate that in fact there were two different requests, one from TVNZ News and one from the New Zealand Herald. The Crown opposed both applications.

[2]      I now deal specifically with the New Zealand Herald request.   The New Zealand Herald  request  seeks  copies  of all  documents  on  the present  court  file without limitation.

[3]      For the same reasons that I have set out in my earlier judgment, applying my discretion under r 6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, I refuse access at this point in the proceeding.  In addition to Ms Tolond’s report, there is a good deal of confidential material on the file.   It is personal to Mr Robertson and if he is not convicted he would wish to keep it confidential.

[4]      The reason put forward for accessing the court file is “… to access the information as soon as possible to prepare reports for publication at the conclusion of the new proceedings faced by Mr Robertson.”  This reason is not persuasive.  There is no need for any particular media organisation to have access in advance of and in anticipation of suppression being lifted.   The file is of moderate dimensions, and could be read and understood by an experienced journalist within a relatively short timeframe.  All journalists are likely to have an equal opportunity to apply to see the material if suppression is lifted. They can review their position then.

[5]      For the time being, a balancing of the r 6.10(2) factors leads to a conclusion in favour of privacy.

[6]      Therefore, I decline the application of the New Zealand Herald dated 16 June

2014.

……………………………..

Asher J

1      Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Robertson [2014] NZHC 1526.