Marong v Attorney-General

[2025] NZHC 1193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-377

[2025] NZHC 1193

UNDER

the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

BETWEEN

SAINEY MARONG

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF IMMIGRATION NEW ZEALAND

First Defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMS NEW ZEALAND

Second Defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Third Defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE IMMIGRATION AND

PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

Fourth Defendant

Hearing:

(Determined on the papers)

Counsel:

S M Kinsler and C E Sinclair for First to Third Defendants G M Taylor and L E Sinclair for Fourth Defendant

A Leask, Applicant for access, in person

Judgment:

16 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE OSBORNE

[1]    Anna Leask, a senior journalist with NZME, seeks access to 15 identified documents on the court file relating to this proceeding.

MARONG v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF IMMIGRATION NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZHC 1193 [16 May 2025]

[2]    Ms Leask identifies that Mr Marong is a high  profile convicted  offender.  Ms Leask seeks information in relation to the case with a view to publishing a story if newsworthy. Ms Leask explains that at present she has no information on what the specifics of the case are.

[3]    In accordance with the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 the Registrar promptly gave a copy of the request to the parties to the proceeding. Responses were received from counsel for the defendants but not from Mr Marong.

[4]    To the extent that eight of the documents requested are Minutes of the Court, they form part of the formal court record. They are accordingly accessible as of right pursuant to rr 4 and 8. Ms Leask may accordingly exercise the right of inspection in relation to those documents without further direction.

[5]    The remaining documents sought are the statement of claim, the amended statement of claim, and affidavits of the parties.

[6]    By the nature of central aspects of Mr Marong’s pleadings, a statutory obligation of confidentiality applies to extensive aspects of both the pleadings and the affidavits. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to grant access to those documents.

[7]    Had the confidentiality not applied, I would also have found that the application should be refused at this point of the proceeding for the reasons articulated in GFD I LLP v Melville (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Ltd (in rec)1 - until the allegations made in affidavits filed are  fully  responded  to  and  the  parties  have the opportunity to fully address issues at a substantive hearing, privacy considerations outweigh the interests of open justice.

1      GFD I LLP v Melview (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Ltd (in rec) [2012] NZHC 677 at [16].

Result

[8]    I confirm Ms Leask is entitled to access to the Court Minutes, without the need for application.

[9]The remaining aspects of Ms Leask’s application are refused.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Wellington (for First, Second and Third Defendants) Crown Law, Wellington (for Fourth Defendant)