R v D HC Auckland CRI 2003 092 26923

[2008] NZHC 945

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2003 092 26923

REGINA

v

D

Hearing:         18 June 2008

Counsel:         Aaron Perkins for Crown

Barry J Hart for Accused

Judgment:      19 June 2008 at 10:00am

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J [re:  Media applications]

This judgment was delivered by The Hon. Justice Williams On

Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 10:00am

pursuant to R 540(5) of the High Court Rules

……………………………………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

The media application is granted, subject to the media guidelines.

R V D HC AK CRI 2003 092 26923  19 June 2008

[1]      I am grateful to Mr Hart I am grateful to Mr Hart for his memorandum and for counsel’s assistance.  Most of the housekeeping issues addressed by Mr Hart in his memorandum are matters which can be dealt with during the trial and certainly some of the issues such as the timetabling issues will need to be dealt with earlier rather than later.  But at least the matters which were giving the Crown some concern in its preparation for the trial have now been largely addressed and accordingly those pass from consideration, for the moment at least.

[2]      As far as the media application by Television New Zealand and TV 3 is concerned, there are now, as counsel observed, two contrasting views of Judges of this court as to whether the media guidelines are valid and ought to be implemented. In R v Sila Fogarty J took one view and declined to grant coverage.  In R v Crutchley Keane J took the opposite view and permitted coverage in that case in accordance with the guidelines.

[3]      However appropriate Fogarty J’s views may have been in Sila for the case with which he was then concerned, there is no disguising the fact that there is a difference of view between Judges of this Court as to the media guidelines.  In my view, however, the precedent to follow is R v Crutchley rather than R v Sila, particularly since the place of media in the courts has been approved by the Court of appeal in R v Mahunga [2001] 1 NZLR 641 and R v Thompson [2005] 3 NZLR 577.

[4]      As Mr Akel observed, if the media coverage becomes oppressive or if the right  to  have  cameras  in  Court  is  threatening  the  fair  trial  process,  the  order permitting coverage in accordance with the media guidelines can be revisited and, if necessary, cancelled.

[5]      These days, television is the proxy for the eyes and ears  of the public, who for the most part choose to get their news of the Courts from television rather than from attendance in Court.   Certainly, it may be the case that Mr D  ’s archive footage may have been unflattering to him during the first trial but he has some protection at least in the 15 minute rule.

[6]      In this case too, it would be futile to decline the media application given the substantial  amount  of  archive  footage  which  exists  and  which  could  be  shown instead.

[7]      And if there is any chance that the media coverage jeopardises or inhibits the accused in the question of his giving evidence – particularly in a trial where insanity is being raised – then again the media coverage question can be reconsidered.

[8]      For the present, however, the media application is granted, subject to the media guidelines and subject to reconsideration if the need arises and, as idiosyncratically required in my case, subject to the media not filming or photographing the Judge.

…………………………………

WILLIAMS J.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland, for Crown

Simpson Grierson, Auckland, for Television New Zealand

Copy for:

Barry J Hart, P O Box 47 016 Auckland 1001, for accused

Case Officer, Auckland High Court