[1] On 7 March 2017, Judge Collins, in the District Court at Auckland, found the appellant, Mr Nottingham, in contempt of Court for wilfully insulting a judicial officer. That is an offence pursuant to s 212 of the District Court Act 2016, and the maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding $1,000. Judge Collins did not impose any penalty.1

[2] Mr Nottingham appeals Judge Collins’ decision finding him in contempt.

Application to adduce further evidence

[3] Mr Nottingham appeared on his own behalf. Immediately prior to the hearing, he lodged a document headed:

Application seeking the Courts observance of the minimal standards of criminal procedure and the disclosure of evidential material that will prove the provenance of the Judges allegations that the allegations were flagrantly untrue, as to the Judge tampering with a transcript, or ordering the tampering of a transcript, and thus the appellant committed criminal contempt, and was not merely recording this belief based on evidence he held that the allegation was properly made in the circumstances surrounding his right to have his rights to justice determined by an impartial and honest Judge.

[4] In the course of his submissions, it became clear that what Mr Nottingham was seeking by this application was disclosure of what he referred to as the “metadata” sent by the National Transcription Service to the Ministry of Justice in the course of an earlier hearing. As I understand it, Mr Nottingham is asserting that Judge Collins tampered with that metadata.

[5] This issue had already been dealt with by Downs J, in a minute issued in these proceedings dated 27 April 2017, when Mr Nottingham sought the same material. I agree with the observations there made. The matter at issue in this appeal is whether or not Mr Nottingham committed a contempt by wilfully insulting Judge Collins. That falls to be determined by reference to the transcript of the hearing which occurred on 7 March 2017. That is available. Mr Nottingham does not challenge it.

[6] I decline Mr Nottingham’s application for further disclosure.

The hearing on 7 March 2017

[7] Mr Nottingham faces seven charges. It is alleged that between 2010 and

2015, Mr Nottingham published, or had published, numerous articles on a blog site called “Laudafinem.com”. The Crown asserts that articles were published in breach of a suppression order, and that other articles were published with intent to harass, contrary to s 8(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i) of the Harassment Act 1997.

[8]…

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.

Continue reading Nottingham v Solicitor-General

Details

AGLC: Nottingham v Solicitor-General [2017] NZHC 1325
Case: [2017] NZHC 1325
Decision Date: 15 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nottingham v Solicitor-General involved an appeal by Mr Nottingham against a finding of contempt made by Judge Collins in the District Court at Auckland. The contempt was for Mr Nottingham's alleged wilful insult of Judge Collins during a hearing on 7 March 2017. The legal issues in the case were whether Mr Nottingham's comments were wilful and insulting, and whether the procedure followed by Judge Collins complied with the rules of natural justice. The court held that Mr Nottingham's comments were wilful and insulting, but that the appeal should be allowed because the process followed by Judge Collins breached the rules of natural justice. The appeal was therefore allowed and the finding of contempt was set aside.

The reasoning of the court was that Mr Nottingham's comments directly accused Judge Collins of tampering with the court record, which was tantamount to alleging that the judge perverted the course of justice. The comments were made in an open court and were extremely serious. The court found that Mr Nottingham either intended to insult the judge, or was reckless as to whether Judge Collins would be insulted. In the context of the comments made, they were insulting. However, the court found that the procedure followed by Judge Collins breached the rules of natural justice. The court held that a judge is required to follow certain minimum standards when considering an allegation of contempt, including identifying the act or acts giving rise to the alleged contempt with sufficient particularity, and giving the person an opportunity to take legal advice and consider their position. Because this procedure was not followed, the appeal was allowed, and the finding of contempt was set aside. The court declined to make any of the further orders sought by Mr Nottingham as most were beyond the jurisdiction of the court in appeal proceedings.

Orders