R v Corkran - [2023] NZHC 2743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-083-1688

[2023] NZHC 2743

THE KING

v

JOHN RICHARD JAMES CORKRAN

On the Papers

Counsel:

M Wilkinson-Smith for Crown

R Lithgow KC and A Jeremich for Defendant

Judgment:

29 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Access to court documents]

Introduction

[1] On 14 August 2023 I granted Mr Jimmy Ellingham, a journalist from Radio New Zealand, access to “Mr Corkran’s police or other statements held on the Court file”, subject to the material first being referred to me to ensure compliance with the scope of the access granted.1

[2] Subsequently, on 28 August 2023, Mr Ellingham emailed the Registry to clarify the scope of his request:

For clarity’s sake I wish to view and take notes of witness statements,
including from Mr Corkran or police officers who had spoken to him or were

1 R v Corkran [2023] NZHC 2181 at [15]–[16].

R v CORKRAN [2023] NZHC 2743 [29 September 2023]

involved in the prosecution, copies of the indictment, and any documents or advice to the Crown or police about bringing the charge.

(emphasis added).

[3]On 5 September 2023, I issued a minute in the following terms:

I had taken [Mr Ellingham’s] request to have been directed to Mr Corkran’s statements, rather than the statements of any proposed Crown witness. Given the sensitive matters likely set out in those statements and the complainants’ privacy interests, it is appropriate that the Crown provide a response to the request, including the request for access to legal advice. I have already granted the request for access insofar as it relates to Mr Corkran’s police or other statements held on the Court file, which should be facilitated in accordance with the direction at [15]–[16] of my judgment.

Once I have responses from the parties I will address the other aspects of Mr Ellingham’s request for access.

[4] On 11 September, the Crown advised that it had no objections to the request for access to the court file, subject to one complainant who had indicated they did not support media access to their statements or publication of their name.

[5] I approach the request insofar as it relates to access to Court documents beyond those dealt with in my former judgment as a new request.

Relevant legal principles

[6] Third party access to documents contained in a court file is governed by the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules). The principles relating to access to court documents were set out in my previous judgment:2
[7] Determining requests for access involves a broad balancing exercise. Rule 12 requires the Court to consider the nature of, and the reasons given for, each request. I must also consider the following matters insofar as they might be relevant:

(a)the orderly and fair administration of justice:

(b)the right of a defendant in a criminal proceeding to a fair trial:

(c)the right to bring and defend civil proceedings without…

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 Corkran

Details

AGLC: R v Corkran [2023] NZHC 2743
Case: [2023] NZHC 2743
Decision Date: 29 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with a request from a journalist, Mr Jimmy Ellingham, for access to specific documents in the case of the Crown versus John Richard James Corkran. The request included witness statements, particularly those of Mr Corkran, copies of the indictment, and any legal advice or documents related to the prosecution. The court had previously granted access to Mr Corkran's statements but needed to address the broader request for additional documents.

The legal issues centred on balancing the principles of open justice and the freedom to receive information against the privacy interests of the witnesses and the fair administration of justice, especially considering Mr Corkran's declining health and the stayed proceedings. The court also had to weigh the public's right to know against the potential for unbalanced reporting of untested allegations.

The court determined that while there was a strong interest in open justice and accurate reporting, these had to be balanced against the privacy interests of the witnesses and the fair administration of justice. Given that Mr Corkran's health was deteriorating and he could not respond to allegations publicly, the court decided not to grant access to the requested witness statements. However, to uphold the principle of open justice, the court allowed access to the Crown charge notices and any legal advice held on the court file. The court declined to provide access to the Crown's summary of facts, as it did not believe this would ensure fair and balanced reporting.

The court's decision highlighted the complex balancing act required when deciding on access to court documents, especially in sensitive cases where privacy and fair trial rights must be considered alongside the public's right to know.

Orders