Norsworthy v Police

[2013] NZHC 2551

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT PURSUANT TO S 27 VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT 2002.

INTERIM ORDER MADE PROHIBITING ACCESS TO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICE AND COUNSEL FOR MR NORSWORTHY AND EXTRACT OF MR NORSWORTHY'S INTERVIEW UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000048 [2013] NZHC 2551

BETWEEN

DANNY NORSWORTHY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Defendant

Hearing:	30 September 2013
Counsel:	J B Wickliffe for Appellant R E Savage for Respondent K M Bradley for APN
Judgment:	1 October 2013

JUDGMENT (No. 2) OF COLLINS J

[1] Ms Leask, a reporter with the New Zealand Herald has applied under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 for an order permitting her to search, inspect and copy the following documents in relation to Mr Norsworthy’s file:

(1)Police summary of facts;

(2)Judge’s sentencing notes;

(3)Any victim impact statements or letters to the Court;

(4)Any written submissions from the defence and prosecution;

NORSWORTHY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2551 [1 October 2013]

(5)Copies  of  judgments  and  submissions  pertaining  to  suppression orders;

(6)Any other judgments/rulings made relating to this prosecution;

(7)The defendant’s criminal conviction history;

(8)Opposition to bail forms filed by police and any submissions by defence/police.

[2] The application is opposed by Mr Norsworthy. The Crown adopts a neutral position except for the application in relation to any victim impact statements or letters to the Court.

Reasons for the application

[3] The New Zealand Herald is interested in inspecting and copying the documents referred to above because Mr Norsworthy pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for assaulting his current partner. He is a person of interest to  the  police  in  relation  to  the  death  of  his  former  partner, Ms Furlong.

Relevant considerations

[4] The decision as to whether or not to permit the application involves the exercise of discretion. In exercising that discretion I take into account the following matters:

(1)The right of Mr Norsworthy to a fair hearing;

(2)The orderly and fair administration of justice;

(3)The protection of confidentiality and privacy interests;

(4)The principle of open justice; and

(5)The freedom to seek, receive and impart information.

Concurrent rulings

[5] I have already determined that Mr Norsworthy’s right to a fair hearing is not compromised by allowing publication of his name, the details of the charge which he faced in the District Court, or his connection with the ongoing police investigation.1

[6]    I have also previously determined that the victim’s impact statement should be suppressed having regard to s 27(2) of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.

Police interview

[7]   The   documents   now   on   file   include   extracts   from   an   interview Mr Norsworthy had with the police, and correspondence between the police and Mr Norsworthy’s counsel. I have received no submissions on whether those documents should be able to be accessed by the New Zealand Herald. I will temporarily prohibit the New Zealand Herald from accessing those documents until after I have considered written submissions from counsel about whether or not the New Zealand Herald should be able to access those documents. Counsel should file their submissions within ten working days of the date of this judgment.

Determination

[8]     In my assessment, the New Zealand Herald has a genuine and proper interest in being permitted to search the court files and to have access to all of the documents sought other than the victim impact statement because:

(1)The press has a duty to fairly and accurately report on issues of legitimate public interest;

(2)There is a public interest in the matters before the Court;

(3)The proceeding before the Court raises topical questions which are legitimately in the public interest;

1       Norsworthy v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 2550.

(4)Having access to the documents will assist the New Zealand Herald and accurately and responsibly reporting the case before the Court.

[9] However, the New Zealand Herald will not access the  victim  impact statement and in the interim, may not access the correspondence between the police and Mr Norsworthy’s counsel and the extract of his police interview that is on file.

Conclusion

[10] The application is granted save for the prohibition against the New Zealand Herald being able to search, inspect and copy the victim impact statement, the correspondence between police and Mr Norsworthy’s counsel, and the extract of his police interview that is on file.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Public Defence Service, Albany for Appellant Crown Solicitor, Auckland for Respondent Bell Gully, Auckland for APN