Mediaworks TV v Blowers - [2014] NZHC 3073

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-088-001070 [2014] NZHC 3073

BETWEEN
MEDIAWORKS TV, FAIRFAX MEDIA,

APN - NZ HERALD AND TVNZ Applicants

AND

MICHAEL DAVID BLOWERS Respondent

Hearing: 3 December 2014

Appearances:

Ms Owen for Mediaworks TV (TV3) Fairfax

NZ Herald
TVNZ
A Fairley and P J Magee for Respondent
M B Smith for Crown

Judgment:

3 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

ON MEDIA APPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 December 2014 at 4.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the
High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Thomson Wilson, Whangarei

Copy to: 3 News Mediaworks
Fairfax,
APN – NZ Herald
TVNZ

MEDIAWORKS TV & ORS v BLOWERS [2014] NZHC 3073 [3 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] Following his guilty pleas Mr Blowers was today sentenced to four years,

nine months’ imprisonment.

[2] Various media organisations have applied for access to documents on the

Court file:

(a) New Zealand Herald seeks access to the written statements of Andrew

Glendinning, Karyn Malthus and Ms E;

(b)Fairfax Media seeks access to the summary of facts and any victim impact statements;

(c) Mediaworks TV3 seeks access to the statements of Karyn Malthus, Andrew Glendinning and Ms E, and also the video tape interview between the police and Mr Blowers.

(d) TVNZ seeks access to “the case file”.

Preliminary matters

[3] I record that there remains in place an order under s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 prohibiting publication of the name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of Ms E.

[4] The basis for some of the applications is a little unclear. The Mediaworks (TV3) application refers to clause 6.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012. It appears r 6.6 is the correct rule. However, nothing turns on this point as r 6.10, Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 applies to determination of the application in any event.

[5] The Fairfax media application refers to r 6.4(1). That rule provides for a general right of access to the documents set out in that subsection. The documents sought by Fairfax, the summary of facts and any victim impact statements, do not

come within r 6.4(1). However, again nothing turns on that as I will treat the application as being brought under r 6.6.

Determination of the applications

[6] As noted, the applications are to be determined under r 6.10. By r 6.10(2) the Court is directed to consider the nature of and reasons for the application or requests and to take into account the following matters:

(a) the right of the defendant to a fair hearing: (b) the orderly and fair administration of justice:
(c) the protection of confidentiality, privacy interests (including those of children and other vulnerable members of the community), and any privilege held by, or available to, any person:

(d) the principle of open justice, namely, encouraging fair and accurate…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mediaworks TV v Blowers and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 3073
Decision Date: 3 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mediaworks TV v Blowers, several media entities applied for access to documents from the court file, including witness statements and a video interview of the respondent, Michael David Blowers. The applications were made following Blowers' sentencing to imprisonment for a crime he had pleaded guilty to. The media argued that releasing the information would be in the public interest, citing the principle of open justice and the media's role as the public's eyes and ears. However, the court found that the applications were misconceived as the principle of open justice primarily supported the media's right to report on what occurs in court, not to access confidential documents not presented in open court. The court emphasised that the media had already reported on the case adequately up to the point of sentencing, and that releasing the requested documents could lead to misleading and imbalanced reporting.

The court considered various factors, including the right to a fair hearing, the administration of justice, and the protection of confidentiality and privacy. It concluded that granting the applications would be contrary to the interests of justice, as the documents had not been tested by cross-examination and releasing them could lead to inaccuracies. Furthermore, the court noted that Blowers had already accepted responsibility for his actions, and releasing untested statements could amount to a further trial by the media. Thus, the applications to access the court file for witness statements and the respondent's interview were declined. The media were, however, permitted access to the summary of facts used for sentencing and the victim impact statement by the Northland Police, subject to a confidentiality order regarding a police informant.

Orders