Jolly v Television New Zealand Limited

[2017] NZHC 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-409-000022 [2017] NZHC 290

BETWEEN

DARREN ALBERT JOLLY

Appellant

AND

TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

First Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Second Respondent

Hearing:	28 February 2017
Appearances:	R R Ward for Appellant N Ullal for First Respondent C Boshier and C Bernhardt for Second Respondent
Judgment:	28 February 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[1]      Thank you counsel for your submissions.   I am going to give my decision now.  The detailed reasons for my decision will follow because of time constraints, but I will give my decision with respect to matters before the Court now.

[2]      Before the Court is a matter brought by the appellant, Mr Jolly, concerning a decision of Judge Roberts in the District Court given on 25 January 2017.   Judge Roberts’s decision on that date was one granting Television New Zealand Limited’s application to allow in-court media video recording of the appellant’s upcoming sentencing hearing at the Christchurch District Court on 8 March 2017.

[3]      Mr  Jolly has  filed  in  this  Court  a  notice  of  general  appeal  against  that decision of Judge Roberts.  Issues arise here as to whether Judge Roberts’ decision

under the in-court media guidelines is properly appealable but, in any event, before

JOLLY v TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 290 [28 February 2017]

me Mr Ward counsel for Mr Jolly, referred to para 17 of his written submissions today indicating that in a broad sense, in the alternative, matters before the Court could be considered a judicial review of that decision of Judge Roberts in terms of s 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[4]      Today I have received submissions on these matters from Mr Ward counsel for Mr Jolly, Ms Ullal counsel for TVNZ, and Ms Boshier for the Crown.

[5]      In  considering those submissions I am of the clear view that Mr Jolly’s application to this Court, be it by way of appeal or by way of judicial review of the decision of Judge Roberts dated 25 January 2007 must fail and it is dismissed.  My detailed reasons for this decision will follow.

...................................................

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co

Copies to

Rupert Ward, Barrister, Rangiora

Second Respondent