R v Boyle - [2023] NZHC 1763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2019-025-002088

[2023] NZHC 1763

THE KING

v

JOSEPH KEVIN BOYLE

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

R Donnelly for the Crown

J M Ablett-Kerr KC for the Defendant

Judgment:

7 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] On 1 June 2021, Nation J made a finding, in terms of s 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act), that Mr Boyle was not guilty of the murder of his step-brother, James Clark by reason of his insanity.1 He also made an order, under s 24(1)(c) of the Act, that Mr Boyle was to be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. No application was made for the continuing suppression of Mr Boyle’s name.

1 R v Boyle [2021] NZHC 1276.

R v BOYLE [2023] NZHC 1763 [7 July 2023]

[2] This judgment determines an application by TVNZ for access to the Court file to obtain copies of the reports obtained by the Court in respect of Joseph Boyle under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

The application

[3] Mava Moayyed, a reporter from TVNZ Sunday, made an application on 21 March 2023 for access to the Court file. Specifically, the request is made “for all section 38 reports completed about Mr Boyle that were used in the murder trial”. The reason for the application is as follows:

I am working with Joseph Boyle’s family on a story for TVNZ’s Sunday programme about the care Joseph received from Mental Health Services in Southland. These documents will help us understand the mental profile of Joseph and the reasons he was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.

[4] The application also states that Mr Boyle’s father, Kevin Boyle, has authority to act on his son’s behalf and has given TVNZ permission to request and obtain documents pertaining to this case. Contact details for Kevin Boyle were provided.

[5] Upon receiving the application, the High Court Registrar contacted Mr Boyle’s previous lawyer Ms Ablett-Kerr KC who indicated there was no objection to the application. Counsel for the Crown confirmed that they would abide the decision of the Court.

[6] The Court enquired whether there was authority for Kevin Boyle to act on behalf of his son Joseph. On 19 April 2023, Mava Moayyed emailed the Court attaching an email from Kevin Boyle, dated 24 January 2023, as follows:

To Whom it may concern

I, Kevin Joseph Boyle, give Mava Moayyed permission to act on Joseph’s behalf regarding any matters for e.g. mental health, correction, etc. I authorise the release of any reports and files pertaining to my son’s case requested by Mava Moayyed.

I have the authority to authorise the above.

[7] On 13 June 2023, the Court Registrar sent an email to Kevin Boyle seeking a copy of the relevant documentation providing…

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 Boyle

Details

AGLC: R v Boyle [2023] NZHC 1763
Case: [2023] NZHC 1763
Decision Date: 7 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, in the Invercargill Registry, heard an application by TVNZ for access to the Court file to obtain copies of the reports obtained by the Court in respect of Joseph Kevin Boyle. The application was made by Mava Moayyed, a reporter from TVNZ Sunday, seeking access to all section 38 reports completed about Mr Boyle that were used in the murder trial. Mr Boyle’s father, Kevin Boyle, had given TVNZ permission to request and obtain documents pertaining to the case, but no documentation was provided to support his authority. The Crown had no objection to the application, and the previous counsel for Mr Boyle indicated there was no objection. The Court considered the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 and other relevant cases, and ultimately declined the application. The Court found that Mr Boyle was a vulnerable member of the community and that his privacy interests outweighed the principle of open justice. The Court also found that the published judgment containing considerable material about Mr Boyle’s mental state was sufficient to meet the principle of open justice.

The court was required to decide whether TVNZ should be granted access to the Court file to obtain copies of the reports obtained by the Court in respect of Joseph Boyle under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The Court considered the relevant rules and cases, and whether the application met the criteria outlined in r 12 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. The Court also considered the privacy interests of Mr Boyle and the principle of open justice. The Court found that Mr Boyle was a vulnerable member of the community and that his privacy interests outweighed the principle of open justice. The Court also found that the published judgment containing considerable material about Mr Boyle’s mental state was sufficient to meet the principle of open justice.

The Court found that the application should be declined. The Court found that the published judgment containing considerable material about Mr Boyle’s mental state was sufficient to meet the principle of open justice. The Court also found that Mr Boyle was a vulnerable member of the community and that his privacy interests outweighed the principle of open justice. The Court found that no documentation was provided to support the legal basis to support Mr Kevin Boyle’s ability to act or consent on behalf of his son to the application. The Court found that the application should be declined.

The Court declined the application and ordered that TVNZ be not granted access to the Court file to obtain copies of the reports obtained by the Court in respect of Joseph Boyle under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The Court found that the published judgment containing considerable material about Mr Boyle’s mental state was sufficient to meet the principle of open justice. The Court also found that Mr Boyle was a vulnerable member of the community and that his privacy interests outweighed the principle of open justice.

Orders