Mr Vince Siemer seeks to review a decision of O’Regan J by minute of 20 October 2015 to refuse access to court documents.[1] Mr Siemer has applied for its discharge or variation and in doing so has invoked s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 (the Act).[2]
[1]Greer v Smith SC 80/2015, 20 October 2015.
[2]For this reason, O’Regan J has participated in the present exercise.
The Act and the Supreme Court Rules 2004 (the Rules) do not explicitly address (a) how requests for access to court files should be determined in the first instance and (b) what, if any, review rights are available. The present review application provides an opportunity for us to reconsider the way in which we deal with such issues.

The relevant provisions of the Act and Rules

The possibly relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:
17       Constitution of Court
(1)       The Supreme Court comprises—
(a)       the Chief Justice; and
(b)not fewer than 4 nor more than 5 other Judges, appointed by the Governor-General as Judges of the Supreme Court.
…
25       General powers
…
(2)In any proceeding, the Supreme Court can make any ancillary or interlocutory orders (including any orders as to costs) it thinks fit.
…
27       Exercise of powers of Court
(1)For the purposes of the hearing and determination of a proceeding, the Supreme Court comprises 5 Judges of the Court.
(2)Any 2 or more permanent Judges of the Supreme Court can act as the Court—
(a)to decide whether an oral hearing of an application for leave to appeal to the Court should be held, or the application should be determined just on the basis of written submissions:
(b)      to determine an application for leave to appeal to the Court.
…
…
28       Interlocutory orders and directions may be made and given by one Judge
(1)In a proceeding before the Supreme Court, any permanent Judge of the Court may make any interlocutory orders and give any interlocutory directions the Judge thinks fit (other than an order or direction that determines the proceeding or disposes of a question or issue that is before the Court in the proceeding).
(2)Any permanent Judge of the Supreme Court may review a decision of the Registrar made within the civil jurisdiction of the Court under a power conferred on the Registrar by a rule of Court, and may confirm, modify, or revoke that decision as the Judge thinks fit.
(3)The Judges of the Supreme Court who together have jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding may—
(a)       discharge or vary an order or direction made or given…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Greer v Smith

Details

AGLC: Greer v Smith [2015] NZSC 196
Case: [2015] NZSC 196
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Alan Ivo Greer applied for a review of a decision made by O’Regan J, who had denied him access to court documents in a case involving Ray Smith and Jack Harrison. The case number is SC 80/2015, and the court consisted of Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, and O'Regan JJ. Mr. Vince Siemer, representing the applicant, invoked section 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 for this review. The court needed to decide how requests for access to court files should be determined and what, if any, review rights are available. The Supreme Court Act and the Supreme Court Rules 2004 do not explicitly address these matters, creating an opportunity for the court to reconsider its approach.

The court concluded that applications for access to court records should be directed to a Judge. Decisions by the Registrar on such access, if made by parties to the proceedings, are reviewable by a Judge. Since there are no specific rules of court governing access, decisions on access will follow the rules applicable to access to High Court and Court of Appeal court records. The court found that there is no statutory right to seek a review of a decision by a Judge directly determining an application for access to court records or reviewing a decision by a Registrar. Consequently, the court saw no reason to review O’Regan J's approach, which aligned with the practice described.

The application for discharge or variation was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the inherent supervisory power of the Judges over Court records remains, and the court's approach to access requests is consistent with this principle.

Orders