R v Mason

[2025] NZHC 886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2011-070-1249

[2025] NZHC 886

THE KING

v

TAMATI MASON

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

A Pollett for the Crown

A Sykes for the Defendant

Judgment:

11 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

[Application for access to court documents]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 April 2025 at 11.30 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Pollett Legal, Tauranga

Annette Sykes & Co., Rotorua

Copy to:
P Lew, University of Melbourne, Australia

R v MASON [2025] NZHC 886 [11 April 2025]

[1]    The  applicant  Prince  Lew  is  a  juris  doctor   student  at  the  University   of Melbourne.   He seeks access to documents held on the High Court’s file for       R v Mason.1

[2]    As part of his studies,  Mr Lew is preparing  a paper on the intersection      of indigenous and settler criminal laws. The paper will be assessed as course material and submitted for potential publication.

[3]Mr Lew seeks access to:

(a)official or unofficial transcripts;

(b)expert evidence from Moana Jackson; and

(c)any other documents which he may be permitted to access.

Legal principles

[4]    Access to court documents is governed by the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

[5]    Broadly, the Rules provide for access to two kinds of documents.  The first   is access to the “formal court record”, to which the public have a general right of access. The second are any other documents, where the Court must exercise a discretion before the documents can be released.

[6]    The documents sought do not fall within the category of documents constituting the “formal court record”, so Mr Lew’s application falls for consideration under rr 11–13.

1      R v Mason HC Hamilton CRI-2011-070-1249; R v Mason [2012] NZHC 1361, [2012] 2 NZLR 695.

[7]    A Judge may grant such a request with or without conditions, having considered:

(a)the nature of the request;

(b)the reasons for the request; and

(c)each of the matters set out in r 12 that are relevant to the request or any objection to the request.

[8]The matters for consideration under r 12 are:

(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 comment on, court hearings and decisions):

(f)the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information:

(g)whether a document to which the request relates is subject to any restriction under rule 7:

(h)any other matter that the Judge thinks appropriate.

[9]    The approach to balancing the r 12 considerations is set out in r 13, which makes a distinction as to whether the request is made before, during or after any substantive hearing. The protection of confidentiality and privacy interests have greater weight after a substantive hearing than would be the case during a substantive hearing.

Analysis

[10]   The starting point is the nature of, and reason for, the request. I accept that  Mr Lew seeks access to these documents for his studies, a purpose which I can conclude is proper and legitimate.

[11]   No objections have been referred to me and, in any event, the period by which written notice of an objection is required has since lapsed.

[12]   Having turned my mind to the matters for consideration under r 12, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order release of the Court documents on the file which fall within the scope of Mr Lew’s request. The proceedings have been long concluded. There are no countervailing privacy or confidentiality interests which have been identified. The documents sought are limited and form a record of a judicial process. In the circumstances, the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, and the principle of open justice, are paramount.

[13]   However, it is a general standard that request for access should not be broadly cast or vague, and that the request must specify the exact documents sought to allow the Court to properly assess its merits. The Court has previously directed that any person seeking access should consult the register of documents filed to ascertain what is contained on the court file.2

Result

[14]   I order that Mr Lew is given access to the documents he has specified in his written request.

[15]   Necessarily, these documents are to be accessed and utilised only for the academic purpose Mr Lew has submitted as the reason for his request.

2      Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation v Huh [2020] NZHC 2589.

[16]   Should Mr Lew need further documents on the court file, he may liaise with the Registry to obtain the register of documents and submit a further request.

Gardiner J