F v Police HC Auckland CRI-2007-404-242

[2007] NZHC 852

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2007-404-242

CRI-2007-090-7382

F

Appellants

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         4 September 2007

Appearances: Ms Sapolu for Appellants

Ms Lummis for Respondents

Judgment:      4 September 2007

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Ms Sapolu, Auckland

F V NZ POLICE HC AK CRI-2007-404-242  4 September 2007

[1]      There are two appeals before the Court, one by Ms F   and one by Mr

V  .    They relate to orders made in the District Court at Waitakere on 9 August

2007.

[2]      The appeals relate to an order that  in-Court  cameras be permitted in the District Court and the refusal of the District Court Judge to suppress the names of the appellants, at least until the pre-deposition stage.

[3]      When the appeals were called today, Ms Sapolu advised me that her clients would effectively abide the decision of the Court.

[4]      As I remarked to her during the hearing, it is virtually impossible to appeal against any decision by a Judge to permit or decline in-Court camera coverage by the media.   How a Judge decides to conduct proceedings in his or her Court is largely a matter for the Judge and would only in the rarest of circumstances be amenable to review or appeal.

[5]      The Judge in the present case went through the media guidelines (which as their name suggests) are guidelines only, and do not have the force of law) and outlined why he was prepared to grant in-Court camera coverage.     I see nothing about the manner in which the Judge determined that issue to suggest that it should be disturbed on appeal.

[6]      The Judge also weighed the various factors for and against interim name suppression.     The only concern that I had when reading  his decision was that, although he referred to the issue of the likely effect of publication on the appellants’ children, in recording the arguments advanced in support of the application, he did not advert to that topic again when weighing the various factors in coming to his conclusion.

[7]      Court proceedings, and particularly criminal proceedings, must generally be held in open Court and are subject to reporting by the media in full.   If that situation is to be disturbed, good reason must be shown for it.

[8]      In the present case there was no material before the learned District Court Judge (or before me) to suggest that the effect on these particular children would be greater than the effect that criminal charges will inevitably have on the family of any person who has been charged with criminal offending.

[9]      On that basis I do not see that any error has been shown on the part of the

Judge in relation to the issue of name suppression.

[10]     Ms Sapolu advised me also that her clients have now had the opportunity to advise their friends and family of the fact that the charges are pending.    On that basis there is no reason to continue the orders for interim suppression that were made in the District Court pending disposition of this appeal

[11]     Both appeals are accordingly dismissed and the interim orders made in the

District Court are now discharged.

Lang J