R v Edgecombe

[2016] NZHC 2975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

T31/02 [2016] NZHC 2975

REGINA

v

JULIAN HEATH EDGECOMBE

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	9 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1]      The  Court  is  in  receipt  of  a  request  from  Liam  James  Reid,  formerly Julian Heath Edgecombe, for a copy of the transcript of a trial which took place in the Christchurch High Court in 2002.  At the time Mr Edgecombe was charged with attempted murder, rape, unlawful sexual connection, unlawful detention, assault with a weapon and theft.  He was acquitted on all charges except the charge of theft.  He subsequently changed his name to Liam James Reid, and is now serving a prison sentence for convictions on other serious charges.

[2]      He seeks access to the transcript under s 6 of the Privacy Act 1993 and asks that it be provided urgently, relying on s 37 of the Privacy Act for this, saying it is needed for another legal proceeding.   However, I do not consider the Privacy Act particularly relevant to this request.  Even if I did, I consider it would only warrant

providing the transcript of Mr Reid’s own evidence.  Rather, the application is to be

REGINA v EDGECOMBE [2016] NZHC 2975 [9 December 2016]

dealt with under the provisions governing access to the Court file contained in the

Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.1

[3]      A request for the release of a transcript in criminal proceedings was discussed in Gosnell v R where the Court noted:2

(a)      notes of evidence (or transcript) are documents within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 and therefore form part of the Court record;

(b)the Court has a wide discretion to ensure that access is granted only in appropriate circumstances, and only to appropriate documents, on whatever conditions are necessary to achieve this.

[4]      I apply the same approach to this request.  Mr Reid’s letter of request is coy about the legal proceedings that the transcript document is said to be required for. Clearly, given the time lapse, it is not an appeal and he expressly says that the proceedings are “unrelated to the New Zealand Police or the Department of Corrections or the Christchurch Court.   It is difficult to deduce therefore what proceedings are envisaged.

[5]      However, in the normal course, a defendant will be permitted access to the transcript of proceeding, noting that during the trial Mr Reid’s counsel would have received a copy of the transcript.  That said, the transcript also contains evidence of a sensitive nature given by the complainant and, despite it forming part of the record, the Court still has a discretion to decline access under r 6.9(2), taking into account who is making the application, what the purpose of the request is and any other relevant circumstance. As was said in Gosnell:

A defendant will normally have a stronger claim than some other participant in the hearing [to access to documents] … however, in every case the Judge determining the application must bring his or her discretion to bear, viewing the application in the round, in order to determine whether access to the particular document sought is appropriate.

1      Part 6, Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.

2      Gosnell v R [2014] NZHC 2235.

[6]      Here, because of the sensitive nature of the evidence given, albeit given in open Court, and the time which has elapsed since the hearing in 2002, I would not be prepared to release the entire transcript to Mr Reid unless his lawyer confirms that it is required for the purpose of considering further legal proceedings.  To that end, I direct that:

(a)      a copy of the transcript of the evidence given by Mr Reid himself (albeit under his former name, Julian Edgecombe) is to be provided to Mr Reid;

(b)a copy of the balance of the transcript is only to be released on receipt of confirmation from Mr Reid’s lawyer that it is required for legal proceedings, and it can then be released to his lawyer for that purpose. His lawyer is then authorised to provide it to Mr Reid for the purposes of such legal proceedings, but not to disseminate it to any third party.

Solicitors:

J Bioletti, Barrister, Auckland