Collier v Broadcasting Standards Authority

[2013] NZHC 1386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386

BETWEEN  JOHN MICHAEL COLLIER Appellant

ANDBROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY

Respondent

Hearing:                   On Papers

Counsel:                  Appellant in Person

Judgment:                11 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      On 31 March 2000 Mr Collier was determined to be a vexatious litigant by virtue  of  s 88B  of  the  Judicature Act 1908.   At  that  time  this  Court  made  the following orders:

(a)       No civil proceedings shall without the leave of the Court, be instituted by Mr Collier himself or his agent.

(b)All civil proceedings instituted by Mr Collier are stayed and may not be continued by him or his agent without leave.

[2]      Mr Collier has made an application for the leave of this Court to be permitted to file a notice of appeal against a decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority of 2 April 2013.  The Broadcasting Standards Authority decision arose because of a complaint made by Mr Collier to the Authority arising from an item on the Close Up

programme broadcast on Television One on 16 October 2012.

COLLIER v BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY [2013] NZHC 1386 [11 June 2013]

[3]      Mr Collier initially attempted to file a notice of appeal in this Court from the Broadcasting Standards Authority.   I released a minute of 14 May 2013, however, advising him that he was not entitled to simply file a notice of appeal.  He needed to file an application for leave to appeal given my view, then expressed, that his appeal was a civil proceeding covered by the orders made that he was a vexatious litigant.

[4]      I advised Mr Collier in my minute of 14 May that I must be satisfied that the appeal was not an abuse of process of the Court and that there were prima facie grounds to bring the proceeding.  I gave Mr Collier 21 days to file any submissions he wanted to establish the above points.  In particular I asked him to identify why the appeal was not an abuse of process and secondly, to identify the exact grounds of appeal  so  some  assessment  could  be  made  of  whether  there  were  prima  facie grounds to bring the proceedings.

[5]      Mr Collier’s original notice of appeal simply said that the decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority was “erroneous in fact and in law”.  Subsequently, Mr Collier filed submissions.

[6]      In these submissions Mr Collier makes the same point that he made in his original notice of appeal.   In his view he did not need leave to bring this appeal because he has a right to do so pursuant to s 18(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

[7]      To repeat my view expressed in my minute of 14 May, I am satisfied that Mr Collier does need leave.  His proposed notice of appeal is a civil proceeding.  It is clearly not a criminal matter and is a proceeding governed by the High Court Rules which deal with civil processes.

[8]      To understand Mr Collier’s application for leave it is necessary to give some background  relating  to  Mr Collier’s  complaint  to  the  Broadcasting  Standards Authority.

[9]      The  Close   Up   item   reported   on   a  controversy  with   respect   to   the establishment of an abortion clinic in Invercargill.  It interviewed those who strongly opposed the clinic and those who supported it.  Mr Collier and a Mr John Fong of

Hamilton complained about the item.  Mr Collier complained about a breach of the accuracy standard, the fairness standard and the discrimination and denigration standard.

[10]     In its decision of the 2 April the Broadcasting Standards Authority set out the background to the complaint and then identified the three questions raised by the complainants:

(a)       Was  any  person  or  organisation  taking  part  or  referred  to  in  the broadcast treated unfairly?

(b)      Was the item inaccurate or misleading?

(c)       Did the item encourage discrimination against or the denigration of any section of the community?

[11]     The Authority held that there was no unfair treatment, nor any inaccurate or misleading information, nor was any section of the community discriminated against or denigrated.

[12]     Mr Collier’s proposed appeal alleges:

(a)       that he did not get a fair hearing before the Authority; (b)       that the Authority made a number of errors of fact; and (c)     there were other errors made relating to discrimination.

[13]     As to a fair hearing, Mr Collier says he did not get a fair hearing because a letter he had sent to TVNZ and the Broadcasting Standards Authority, was not “in the papers placed before the Authority”.

[14]     I have read Mr Collier’s letter.  It contains a series of accusations which for

the most part were part of his case before the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

[15]     Among  other  matters  he  asks  Television  New Zealand  Limited  to  give information about who told the television reporter particular things she reported on in the item.  He asks a series of rhetorical questions essentially alleging inaccuracy of the item and bias against Television One.

[16]     I am satisfied that all relevant matters in the letter of 11 December were canvassed before the Broadcasting Standards Authority and it is, therefore, unlikely Mr Collier has been treated unfairly.   No prima facie case for an appeal has been established here.

Errors of fact

[17]     The appellant identifies in his proposed appeal three errors of fact made by

Television One and the Broadcasting Standards Authority. They are:

(a)      the statement in the Close Up programme and by the Broadcasting Standards Authority that “prolife groups murdered persons in America”.   Mr Collier says this is not true and there is no proof of such.   The Broadcasting Standards Authority referred Mr Collier to the source of the statement. There is no information from Mr Collier other than his assertion that this is not true;

(b)Mr Collier says “other incidents were also untrue”.   It is not entirely clear what incidents he refers to.   Other than his assertion, there is nothing to support what he has said.

(c)      Mr Collier says that the programme said that “Southlanders for life wish to name and shame abortion workers”.  Mr Collier said there was no evidence of this.  The Broadcasting Standards Authority dealt with this complaint and identified why it was not relevant.

[18]     The rest of the appeal contains a series of assertions by Mr Collier such as “Television New Zealand does not have a licence in law to alter the facts to suit its hidden agenda”.  These allegations have no basis other than Mr Collier’s assertion.

They are not established facts on which a potentially successful appeal could be mounted.

[19]     In  my view, this appeal does amount to what  is essentially an  abuse of process.    No  adequate  grounds  of  appeal  by  way  of  errors  of  law  or  fact  are identified.  Mr Collier’s approach is essentially based on the proposition that he does not agree with the Broadcasting Standards Authority dismissing his complaint.  Nor could it be said that there are prima facie grounds to bring this appeal.  None of the grounds are, in my view, likely to succeed.

[20]     In assessing the matter, overall, I am satisfied that leave should not be given for Mr Collier to bring this appeal. The application is, therefore, refused.

Ronald Young J