R v Kokiri - [2019] NZHC 674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2018-055-0930

[2019] NZHC 674

THE QUEEN

v

SYDNEY JAYDEN KOKIRI

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

HAM Watts for the Crown

I A Jayanandan for the Defendant

Judgment:

3 April 2019 at 10.30am

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Access to court documents]

Counsel/Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland Iswari Jayanandan, Manukau

R v KOKIRI [2019] NZHC 674 [3 April 2019]

[1] Mr Kokiri pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter. I sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention.1

[2] Stuff Limited journalist, Edward Gay, seeks access to court documents under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012. He wants to access “[t]he agreed summary of facts [and a] copy of the incident reportedly captured on CCTV security cameras”. He explains he wants to look at these documents because:

The matter relates to a one-punch homicide.

Currently there is a private members bill before Parliament that would see one punch homicides covered by a new law.

With respect, one punch homicides are of particular public interest and this case may be used to debate the merits of such a law change.

[3] The Crown is neutral as to Mr Gay’s access to the summary of facts. Defence counsel, Iswari Jayanandan, advises there is no objection to the summary of facts being provided to the media. Crown counsel, Hinewhare Watts, identifies the relevant summary of facts as being that annexed to Ms Jayanandan’s 17 September 2018 email. Both counsel advise no footage of the incident was filed in Court. That is my comprehension of the Court file also. I therefore only address Mr Gay’s request to access the summary of facts.

Applicable law

[4]Rule 6.1 of the 2012 Rules provides:

The rules providing for access to documents in the custody or control of the High Court … in criminal proceedings are set out in the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

Rule 5(1) of the 2017 Rules states “[t]hese rules do not affect the court’s inherent power to control its own proceedings”.

[5] The summary of facts is not a document to which Mr Gay has a general right to access under Rule 8(3) of the 2017 Rules. His request for access is made under Rule 11, to be determined by my application of Rule 12, having regard to Rule 13.

1 R v Kokiri [2019] NZHC 501.

[6] Rule 12 relevantly requires me to take into account “the orderly and fair administration of justice”, “the right of a defendant in a criminal proceeding to a fair trial”, “the protection of … confidentiality and privacy interests”, “the principle of open justice”, and “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information”, as well as any other matter I think appropriate. Rule 13(c) emphasises:

(c) after the substantive hearing,—
(i)open justice has greater weight in relation to documents that have been relied on in a determination than other documents; but

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 Kokiri

Details

AGLC: R v Kokiri [2019] NZHC 674
Case: [2019] NZHC 674
Decision Date: 3 April 2019 at 10.30am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, a case was brought before Jagose J regarding access to court documents related to the criminal case of The Queen v Sydney Jayden Kokiri. The applicant, Edward Gay, a journalist for Stuff Limited, sought access to an agreed summary of facts and a copy of the incident captured on CCTV security cameras. The case pertains to Kokiri's guilty plea to one charge of manslaughter, and the subsequent sentencing to two years' imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 and the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the requested documents were subject to the general right of access and, if not, whether the public interest in open justice and the freedom of information outweighed the privacy and confidentiality interests of the defendant. The court also had to consider the principle of open justice and the orderly administration of justice.

In deciding the matter, Jagose J noted that the summary of facts was not a document to which Mr Gay had a general right of access. However, the judge found that the agreed summary of facts was essential to Kokiri's guilty plea and that the open justice principle and the absence of any claim of prejudice to Kokiri favoured granting access. The judge emphasised that any publication of the summary of facts must include a statement clarifying that the facts proved in the case are set out in the court's judgment. Consequently, Jagose J granted Edward Gay and Stuff Limited access to the summary of facts under certain conditions.

As a result of the court's decision, Edward Gay and Stuff Limited were granted access to the agreed summary of facts annexed to Ms Jayanandan's email of 17 September 2018, on the condition that any publication of the summary of facts include a statement clarifying that the facts proved in the case are set out in R v Kokiri [2019] NZHC 501.

Orders