R v Banks [Television coverage] - [2014] NZHC 1155

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2012-085-009093 [2014] NZHC 1155

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS

Hearing: 26 May 2014

Appearances:

P Dacre QC and A Van Echten for the Crown
D Jones QC and K Venning for the Defendant, John Banks
C Bradley for TV3/Media Works

Judgment:

28 May 2014

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 28 May 2014 at 3.00 pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

R v BANKS [2014] NZHC 1155 [28 May 2014]

Introduction

[1] On 26 May 2014, I revoked the permission I had earlier given to TV3/Media Works, to film the trial of the Honourable John Banks. I also directed that TV3/Media Works is not to use any footage captured in the courtroom in its coverage of the balance of the trial. I gave brief reasons for these orders and indicated that I would issue this judgment, recording rather more fully the reasons for my orders.

Background

[2] The Honourable John Banks is charged with one count of transmitting a return of electoral expenses, knowing it to be false in a material particular. Mr Banks has pleaded not guilty to that charge and the trial commenced on 19 May
2014.

[3] Prior to the commencement of the trial, TV3/Media Works applied for permission to cover the trial, and to film the proceedings. The application recorded that any film footage might be used in the following television programmes – Firstline, 3 News, Nightline, Campbell Live and 60 Minutes. It also noted that any film footage might be used on the following websites – 3news.co.nz, radiolive.co.nz and TV3.co.nz. The application suggested that the standard conditions should apply in the event that permission was granted.

[4] The application was forwarded to counsel for the Crown, and for Mr Banks. They did not object to the same, and in a minute issued on 27 March 2014, I granted leave to TV3/Media Works, and to a number of other applicants, permitting them to variously film, record, take still photographs at or otherwise cover the trial. I recorded that the grant of permission was in each case subject to the applicable standard conditions which form part of the In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines.

The In-Court Media Guidelines

[5] The In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2012 apply to this Court. They do not have legislative force, and they expressly record that they do not create rights, and that they should not be construed to create expectations.1

[6] The guidelines note that in making decisions, and exercising the discretions under the guidelines, the court should, inter alia, have regard to the need for a fair trial, the desirability of open justice, the principle that the media have an important role in the reporting of trials as the “eyes and ears” of the public, and the importance
of fair and balanced recording of trials.2

[7]…

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 R v Banks [Television coverage]

Details

AGLC: R v Banks [Television coverage] [2014] NZHC 1155
Case: [2014] NZHC 1155
Decision Date: 28 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with a case where the permission granted to TV3/Media Works to film the trial of John Banks was revoked by Justice Wylie. The defendant, John Banks, was charged with transmitting a false return of electoral expenses. Prior to the trial, TV3/Media Works applied for permission to cover and film the proceedings, which was granted subject to the standard conditions of the In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines. The legal issues revolved around whether TV3/Media Works had breached these guidelines and conditions. The court found that the footage broadcast by TV3/Media Works was neither fair nor balanced, and it had exposed Banks to ridicule and derision, thereby breaching the standard conditions. As a result, Justice Wylie revoked TV3/Media Works' permission to film the remainder of the trial and directed that no footage captured in court be used for the balance of the trial. The court also directed the Registrar to write to the Editor-in-Chief of TVNZ/One News to understand their filming processes in court. This judgment was issued to ensure transparency and to serve as a guide for other media organisations and judges considering similar applications in the future.

Orders