R v Corkran - [2023] NZHC 2181

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 2181

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:

14 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Access to court documents]

Introduction

[1] In a judgment of 26 June 2023, I granted a permanent stay of proceedings against Mr Corkran on the basis that it would not be possible for him to receive a fair trial.1

[2] Mr Jimmy Ellingham, a journalist at Radio New Zealand, applies for access to the court file, and in particular “witness statements and any police or other statements made by the defendant”. The stated purpose for the request is to “allow an accurate report of the allegations against the defendants, and high public interest in the case”.2

1 R v Corkran [2023] NZHC 1602 (reissued 28 June 2023).
2 Application for access to court documents, dated 11 July 2023.

R v CORKRAN [2023] NZHC 2181 [14 August 2023]

Mr Ellingham records that he is content to abide by any conditions of access set by the Court.

[3] Mr Corkran opposes the application, at least in part. In a memorandum of 1 August 2023 his counsel, Mr Lithgow KC, requested that the court not release:

(a)personal medical and psychiatric records and

(b)any identifying information by way of names and contact details of him and his family.

The Crown takes a neutral stance on the application.

Principles relating to access to court documents

[5] Requests for access to court documents are governed by the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules).

[6] The applicant is a third party to the proceeding and his request does not come within the scope of r 8(3), which outlines the general rights of the public to access documents in criminal proceedings. The application therefore falls to be determined under r 11. Rule 11(7) provides the Court with a wide discretion to grant or refuse a request for access in whole or in part, and subject to any conditions considered appropriate.

[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 the disclosure of any more information about the private lives of individuals, or matters that are commercially sensitive, than is necessary to satisfy the principle of open justice:

(d)the protection of other confidentiality and privacy interests (including those of children and other vulnerable members of the community) and any privilege held by, or available to, any person:

(e)the principle of open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting of, and…

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 2181
Case: [2023] NZHC 2181
Decision Date: 14 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The King v John Richard James Corkran, the High Court of New Zealand considered an application by a journalist, Mr Jimmy Ellingham, for access to the court file, particularly seeking witness statements and any statements made by the defendant. The application was made in the context of a case where proceedings had been permanently stayed due to concerns about the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. Mr Corkran opposed the application in part, seeking to prevent the release of his personal medical and psychiatric records, as well as any identifying information about himself and his family. The Crown took a neutral stance on the matter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the journalist's request for access to the court documents should be granted, and if so, under what conditions. The court was guided by the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, which provide a framework for determining such requests. The court needed to balance various interests, including the principle of open justice, the right to a fair trial, and the protection of confidentiality and privacy.

The court found that the interests of the journalist and the public in open justice and accurate reporting were significant, particularly given the public interest in the case. However, the court also recognized the need to protect the privacy and confidentiality of Mr Corkran and his family, especially considering Mr Corkran's health. The court concluded that the journalist's application could be granted with conditions to ensure that any sensitive personal information was not disclosed. Specifically, the court ruled that Mr Ellingham must not take notes, make copies, publish, disseminate, or otherwise distribute any information concerning Mr Corkran’s personal medical or psychiatric records, or any identifying information about Mr Corkran or his family. Additionally, the court directed that any material released from the court file must first be reviewed to ensure compliance with these conditions.

In summary, the court granted the journalist's application for access to the court file but imposed strict conditions to protect the privacy and confidentiality of Mr Corkran and his family. This decision balances the public's right to access information with the need to safeguard personal and sensitive information.

Orders