Davis v Deputy Registrar of the High Court

[2025] NZHC 2495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2025-412-91

[2025] NZHC 2495

BETWEEN

ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS

Applicant

AND

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Applicant self-represented
Judgment:	29 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[1]Ms Davis has had and continues to have many proceedings in this Court.

The request for audio recordings

[2]        On 2 August 2025, without reference to any particular proceeding, Ms Davis sent an email to the Deputy Registrar (Registrar) requesting audio recordings in these terms:

Kia Ora,

In respect of every proceeding of which I am a party,

I require copies of the audio recordings from every hearing.

Could the Registrar please let me know when I can expect to receive these by? Kind regards,

Artemis Indigo Davis

DAVIS v DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZHC 2495 [29 August 2025]

[3]        The Registrar promptly responded that Ms Davis would be required to file a formal memorandum request, which would be provided to the parties for their comment before being referred to a Judge to consider. The Registrar stated Ms Davis would be required to specify the times and dates of the Court events of which she was seeking audio recordings.

[4]        Ms Davis responded to the Registrar, referring the Registrar to the provisions of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (Rules). In particular she referred to her right of access as a party to each proceeding under r 1(7)(b) and to her entitlements of inspection and obtaining copies of parts of the Court file under r 9(1). In her email, Ms Davis explained her reason for seeking the recordings was to prepare for hearings and proceedings before the Senior Courts and with the intention of using the recordings as evidence in criminal prosecutions against officers of the High Court and in proceedings before the United Nations International Human Rights Committee.

[5]        The Registrar promptly replied to Ms Davis, referring her to r 9(5)(a), whereby an electronic record in the custody and control of the Court may be copied only with the permission of a Judge. The Registrar again requested Ms Davis to file a memorandum seeking permission to access the electronic record.

[6]        Ms Davis responded to the Registrar. She identified there is no express requirement that any request needs to be in a memorandum. She recorded that any failure to comply with her request by 5 pm that day (4 August) would result in “escalated measures taken to protect my interest”.

[7]The Registrar promptly responded:

to manage your request for audio efficiently and fairly, we require a memorandum from you that clearly outlines, which proceedings you are seeking audio for and the specific dates and times of each court event.

[8]        The Registrar explained that a general request of the nature Ms Davis made is administratively burdensome on the Registry. She also recorded that in the interests of fairness and transparency to all parties she requested that there be a memorandum filed so that it could be copied to any other party involved in the proceeding.

[9]        Ms Davis responded there was no statutory requirement for the action the Registrar was requiring. She expressly did not consent to the Registrar bringing notice of her request to any other party.

[10]      The Registrar responded that her original decision stood. She asked for the memorandum to be provided, whereupon Ms Davis’ request would be referred to a Judge for consideration.

Application for review

[11]      Ms Davis applies for review of the Registrar’s requirement for a memorandum to be filed in respect of her request for “video and audio recordings”.

[12]She asserts:

(a)she has a legitimate interest in there being no formal record of her request;

(b)there is no statutory basis for the Deputy Registrar to seek a memorandum;

(c)she has complied with the requirements under r 10(2) of the Rules;

(d)the Registrar has a duty to seek the permission Ms Davis requires from a Judge; and

(e)the non-compliance is unreasonable.

Discussion

[13]Three aspects of Ms Davis’s request fall for consideration.

Accessing and copying Court records

[14]      Under r 9(1) of the Rules parties have a right to search and inspect the Court file which, in the case of the record of court proceedings in electronic form, includes the right to listen to the Court’s record.

[15]      Under the same rule, the parties are not entitled as of right to a copy of any electronic record in the custody and control of a court—that may be copied only with the permission of a Judge.

[16]      Accordingly, Ms Davis has the right to seek a Judge’s permission, as is common ground between the Registrar and Ms Davis.

The requirement for a memorandum

[17]      The Registrar’s requirement, for the consideration of a Judge, of a memorandum which identifies precisely (by CIV-number) the particular proceedings to which the request for records applies, and the date and time of the Court event, was an entirely appropriate request. I have not been provided with figures as to the numbers of proceedings and the number of  Court  events  in  this Court in  which Ms Davis has been a party. But from proceedings that have come before me I am aware they are many.

[18]      It is appropriate that a memorandum that properly identifies the details requested by the Registrar be filed, so that the Judge who considers the request is properly informed of the precise subject-matter of the request.

[19]      I therefore uphold the Registrar’s requirement for a properly-detailed memorandum to be filed, identifying appropriately the individual proceedings; the timing of hearings; and the reasons for the request.

Notification to other parties

[20]      I do not uphold the Registrar’s requirement for the memorandum to be prepared on the basis that it is to be made available to other parties involved in the affected proceedings. A party requesting access under the Rules is not filing a

document in the proceedings, but is exercising a right in relation to access to records. Service on another party is accordingly not required.

Result

[21]      The review is allowed to the extent any memorandum of request filed  by   Ms Davis pursuant to the present request is not required to be served upon other parties to the affected proceedings. Save to that extent, the Registrar’s requirements in relation to the filing of a memorandum are upheld.

[22]      If and when an appropriately detailed memorandum is filed, it may be submitted to the Duty Judge for consideration.

Osborne J

Copy to: A I D Davis