R v Bell - [2025] NZHC 1779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-8205 [2025] NZHC 1779

THE QUEEN

v

RENE BELL ESTEBAN BLANCO GAVIRIA DAVID BONILLA CASANAS

C
ELIDA LUCIA ESCORIA MARIN ZANE ROBERT JORDAN
FELIPE MONTOYA OSPINA MARIA EMILIA OTERO ANDERSON PELAEZ GARCIA RUTH YANID RAMIREZ ALFONSO J

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel: B Hawes for Crown
A C Kelland for Defendant Bell
N R Rout and M E Rout for Defendant Blanco Gaviria K Paima for Defendant Bonilla Casanas
M Taylor-Cyphers for Defendant C
l Cordwell for Defendant Escoria Marin S N B Wimsett for Defendant Jordan
E Huda for Defendant Montoya Ospina A McCormick for Defendant Otero
S G Bailey for Defendant Pelaez Garcia
T D A Harrē for Defendants Ramirez Alfonso and J

Judgment: 1 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

R v BELL [2025] NZHC 1779 [1 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] Pursuant to the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, (the Rules) John Sibanda brings an application seeking access to Court documents pertaining to “Operation Mist”—a significant police investigation into the importation of cocaine into this country from South America that involved international cooperation with overseas drug enforcement authorities.

[2] By way of application dated 21 March 2025, Mr Sibanda requests access to “the full court records” including transcripts and decisions of the Court. To give an impression of the breadth of Mr Sibanda’s request, this would include:

(a)full transcripts of court hearings and trial;

(b)transcripts of submissions made by counsel;

(c)written submissions by both the prosecution and defence;

(d)all formal statements filed in the proceeding;

(e)all pre-trial decisions;

(f)all bail applications and associated documents;

(g)any media orders or suppression orders; and

(h) appeal documents if the case was subject to appellate review. (the application).

[3] In essence, Mr Sibanda is seeking any and all documents pertaining to the criminal proceedings.

[4]Mr Sibanda says that he seeks access because:

I am producing a TV scripted projected entitled ‘Vicio’. The screenplay is being developed by Esteban Jaramillo-Ulloa and we seek to explore (through fiction) the human dimensions of the ‘Operation Mist’ [premise].

[5] Mr Sibanda adds that the information sought will contribute to a writing project by Mr Jaramillo-Ulloa, a screenwriter who is developing a feature film screenplay for submission to the Write Room Wellington residency programme. The aim of the programme is to support screenwriters to develop their screenplay to a level where it can be pitched to a producer and secure further development funding and a pathway towards production. The screenplay seeks to explore the complexities of isolation, financial motivation, and the socio-cultural factors influencing the actions of the syndicate members. Mr Sibanda says that access to the complete court records will ensure that the portrayal of events and characters is accurate and contributes meaningfully to New Zealand’s screenwriting and storytelling landscape.1

Opposition

[6] Mr Sibanda’s application has been referred to the parties in accordance with r 11(3) and sub-r (5) of the Rules. Although there were…

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 Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Bell [2025] NZHC 1779
Case: [2025] NZHC 1779
Decision Date: 1 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr John Sibanda, sought access to court documents relating to a criminal investigation known as "Operation Mist," which involved the importation of cocaine from South America. Mr Sibanda, a screenwriter, intended to use the documents for a fictional TV project. The court was required to balance the principles of open justice and privacy against the public interest in accurate reporting. The key legal issues were whether Mr Sibanda's request complied with the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 and whether granting access would breach suppression orders protecting certain defendants' identities. The Crown opposed the application, highlighting that access could breach suppression orders and that reviewing and redacting the material would be a significant undertaking. The court found that the suppression orders and privacy interests of the defendants outweighed the public interest in open justice and the applicant's intentions for accurate portrayal. The court declined the application for access to the court documents.

Orders