Johnson

[2022] NZHC 3617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI 2019-083-1448

[2022] NZHC 3617

IN THE MATTER OF

an application to access court documents under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 in relation to the Court’s file in R v Wallace

KRISTY JOHNSON

Applicant

On the papers
Judgment:	22 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]    Kristy Johnson, a reporter at Stuff, applies for access to the court file in CRI- 2019-083-1448: R v Wallace. That file relates to the prosecution of Zane Wallace on a charge of murdering  Jasmine Wilson  and  related  charges.  Other  members  of Mr Wallace’s family were also charged, convicted and sentenced on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[2]    Zane Wallace pleaded not guilty to the murder charge. A jury trial on that charge and related charges commenced in 2021. I was the presiding Judge. The trial had to be aborted because of a late change in the medical evidence on which the Crown relied. However, before that occurred, the jury had heard an audio recording of multiple telephone calls between Mr Wallace and  his  victim,  Ms Wilson,  when  Mr Wallace was in prison. In those calls, Mr Wallace made multiple violent threats to Ms Wilson.

[3]    The retrial of the charges against Mr Wallace was scheduled to commence on 25 July 2022. Before the trial, guilty pleas had been entered or were indicated on the

Re JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 3617 [22 December 2022]

related charges. Shortly before the retrial commenced Mr Wallace indicated that a guilty plea on the murder charge would also be entered. He was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the murder charge on the morning of 25 July 2022. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 15 and a half years.

[4]    The offending against Ms Wilson occurred in the context of a domestic relationship between them. Ms Johnson wishes to write an article about domestic violence with a focus on how some women struggle to find agencies to help them. Ms Johnson says that one of the agencies that has been criticised for failing to intervene in domestic violence situations is Corrections. She understands that the audio calls between Mr Wallace and Ms Wilson were monitored but no action was taken to intervene (I do not know whether this is so). Her article will also cover other aspects of domestic violence, such as coercive control.

[5]    Ms Johnson seeks access to the notes of evidence, the audio played in court, any written statements, the summary of facts, sentencing notes, and a domestic violence expert report. She wishes to listen to the calls to ensure their accuracy when reporting on them.

[6]The Crown is neutral on the application.

[7]    Counsel for Mr Wallace at the trial no longer has instructions. She forwarded the application to Mr Wallace but no response has been received from him. She has also helpfully provided a response based on her knowledge of the case. She makes the point that the basis on which Mr Wallace entered his guilty plea was an agreed summary facts. Many of the formalised written statements were not in final form as amendments were being discussed between counsel. She objects to the audio of the calls being released because there were edits to them after the first trial. She also says the threatening calls were captured in the agreed summary facts. Lastly, she objects to release of the CCTV footage at the hospital on the grounds that members of the public are in the footage (so there are privacy issues) and because she cannot see the relevance of the footage to the proposed article.

[8]    The application is made by a responsible media organisation for the purposes of a public interest article.1 Open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting of court hearings) and the freedom to seek, receive and impart information point strongly in favour of the request.2 The audio calls were played in open court at the first trial. Any edits to what was played at the first trial were to be made for the second trial to avoid unduly prolonging the proceeding and avoiding unnecessary duplication for the jury of what were distressing conversations. That does not preclude their relevance to Ms Johnson’s request nor raise unfair prejudice or other concerns. I consider that Ms Johnson can have access to the audio calls that were played in open court at the first trial. However, this is subject to the condition that, before she publishes any material in them, she should check with Ms Wilson’s family about any concerns they may have about their use.

[9]    Ms Johnson may have access to the final version of the summary of facts relating to Mr Wallace. She may also have access to the sentencing notes relating to Mr Wallace. If she wants the final versions of the summary of facts or the sentencing notes for the other members of the Wallace family, I see no issue with that. She has not asked for the CCTV footage (this relates to the charges against the Wallace family members). I understand another media organisation may have asked for this but that their story has already gone to air and the request is no longer pursued.

[10]   As this stage I decline Ms Johnson’s request for the written statements of lay witnesses. There are likely to be privacy issues in many of them. The witnesses were not required to give evidence (because of the aborted first trial and the guilty plea on the morning of the first trial). I grant Ms Johnson’s request for access to any expert report on domestic violence. I will also consider granting Ms Johnson’s request for access to any expert evidence on Ms Wilson’s injuries if she wishes to pursue this. Her access would be conditional on any story making it clear that this was the proposed evidence, it was not given in open court nor subject to cross examination and aspects of the report may have been disputed by Mr Wallace.

Mallon J

1      Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, r 11(2).

2      Rule 12.