Hager v Attorney-General - [2015] NZHC 1508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-011344 [2015] NZHC 1508

UNDER
the Judicature Amendment Act 1972,

Part 30 of the High Court Rules, the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for judicial review

IN THE MATTER OF

a search warrant issued by Judge I M Malosi of the Manukau District Court on

30 September 2014

BETWEEN

NICOLAS ALFRED HAGER Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Second Respondent

THE MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT Third Respondent

Hearing: 26 June 2015

Counsel:

F E Geiringer for applicant
B J Horsley and K Laurenson for first and second respondents

Judgment:

2 July 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J (Further confidentiality issues)

[1] In a reserved decision on 24 February 2015, I determined a number of challenges brought on behalf of the applicant (Mr Hager) to claims on behalf of the
second respondent (the Police) to withhold otherwise discoverable documents on the

HAGER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1508 [2 July 2015]

ground of confidentiality.1 Since then, there have been several further tranches of documents discovered by the Police, but subject to claims that numerous documents should be withheld from inspection on account of the confidentiality of their content. This provoked an informal request on behalf of Mr Hager for me to consider all the further documents for which confidentiality was claimed, and hear limited argument, to the extent I could when counsel for Mr Hager did not have access to the content of the relevant documents.

[2] Mr Geiringer submitted that the request for judicial consideration of all the documents was justified because of the number of changes in stance as to discoverability of relevant documents by the Police. He also submitted that the scope of relevant documents had been expanded by further allegations in his amended statement of claim to include alleged use of documents seized from Mr Hager’s property in the course of executing the search warrant. Mr Hager claims that such alleged use is in breach of the undertaking that seized documents would be sealed pending a determination on Mr Hager’s claim that the documents should be immune from seizure on account of journalistic privilege.

[3] Prior to the current hearing, I had been unable to precisely identify the extent of documents discovered since my decision in February in respect of which confidentiality was claimed in whole or in part. I discussed with counsel the most efficient manner of identifying and inspecting the documents, and arranged for them to be provided in an additional electronic form to facilitate that.

[4] Having done so, and having heard argument on the transcript of the recording of events whilst the search warrant was being executed, plus the status of other isolated documents, I considered all of the documents in issue and ruled on them in the terms that follow. My judgment was signed and ready for delivery on 1 July
2015, but before it could be issued by…

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 Hager v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Hager v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1508
Case: [2015] NZHC 1508
Decision Date: 2 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hager v Attorney-General involved an application for judicial review by Nicolas Alfred Hager against the Attorney-General and the New Zealand Police regarding a search warrant issued on 30 September 2014. The dispute centred around the confidentiality of certain documents discovered during the execution of the search warrant and the subsequent claims to withhold these documents from inspection. The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, presided over the case, with Justice Dobson delivering the judgment on 2 July 2015.

The legal issues before the court included whether the claims to withhold documents on the grounds of confidentiality were justified and whether there was a breach of an undertaking by the Police to seal seized documents. Additionally, the court had to decide on the admissibility of certain documents, including a transcript of a recording made during the execution of the search warrant.

Justice Dobson ruled that while some redactions in the transcript were justified to protect confidential information about Police investigative techniques, others could be unredacted as they did not reveal sensitive material. The court also confirmed the justification for withholding certain documents entirely due to their confidential nature. Furthermore, the court held that the Police were entitled to claim confidentiality for certain text message screenshots and a related job sheet, as they involved discussions with a confidential source. The court directed the Police to complete further discovery of documents relating to an individual identified during the search to ensure compliance with the terms of the search warrant.

The final orders of the court included specific rulings on the redactions and withholding of certain documents, as well as directions for further discovery by the Police. The court's decision aimed to balance the need for confidentiality in certain cases with the principles of open justice and transparency.

Orders