R v Matamata

[2020] NZHC 3183

PERMANENT NAME SUPPRESION FOR THE VICTIMS CONTINUES, AS PER PREVIOUS ORDER OF THIS COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-020-3953

[2020] NZHC 3183

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH AUGA MATAMATA

On the papers
Counsel:	C R Walker and F E Cleary for the Crown R Philip and W Hawkins for the Defence C Bower for AIM CRI
Judgment:	3 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1]                 This is a request for access to court documents, namely a trial transcript, by a third party. On September 25 2020, Cameron Bower from AIM CRI, a compliance, risk and investigation company focused on mitigating risk about labour exploitation, applied to have access to a copy of the trial transcript for Mr Matamata’s jury trial, held before me over five and a half weeks beginning in February 2020.1 The application includes a request for the notes of evidence. The defence does not oppose the application; the Crown does.

1      Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

R v MATAMATA [2020] NZHC 3183 [3 December 2020]

[2]                 The hearing before the jury was whether Mr Matamata was guilty of numerous charges of slavery and human trafficking under the Crimes Act 1961. The jury found he was, and Mr Matamata was convicted and sentenced accordingly. There are numerous victims to Mr Matamata’s offending, all with permanent name suppression.

Legal principles

[3]                 The Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules) guide the Court’s discretion on whether to grant a third party access to court documents. Mr Bower has a general right of access to the permanent court record of the Matamata proceeding, any published list providing notice of a hearing, any judgment, order or minute of the Court given in the proceeding and any sentencing notes.2  However,  Mr Bower does not have a general right to access the Matamata court file, including a transcript of the hearing or the notes of evidence, hence the present application.

[4]                 Rule 11 of the Rules provides for the procedure to be followed when requesting access to court documents. A person may seek access to any document by providing the relevant Registrar with a written request that:

(a)    identifies the person and gives the person’s address; and

(b)    sets out sufficient particulars of the document to enable the Registrar to identify it; and

(c)    gives reasons for asking to access the document, which must set out the purpose for which the access is sought; and

(d)    sets out any conditions of the right of access that the person proposes as conditions that he or she would be prepared to meet were a Judge to impose those conditions (for example, conditions that prevent or restrict the person from disclosing the document or contents of the document, or conditions that enable the person to view but not copy the document).

[5]                 Rule 12 then provides mandatory considerations in determining applications for access to court information, including:

(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

2      Rule 8(3).

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 or, and comment on, court hearings and decisions);

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

(g)    …

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

[6]In applying r 12, the Judge must have regard to r 13, which provides:

…

(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

(ii)the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests has greater weight than would be the case during the substantive hearing.

Decision

[7]                 The starting point for an application to access court documents is r 11, which has not been complied with here. The application for access does not give reasons for AIM CRI seeking access nor does it set out the purpose for which access is sought.3 The application therefore does not meet the procedural requirements for this Court to make an informed decision on the application and fails on that ground alone.

[8]                 In any event, considering the matters in rr 12 and 13, I consider that the privacy interests of the victims involved in the offending outweigh any benefit that AIM CRI would gain by receiving the documents requested. I accept that the starting point is

3      Rule 11(2)(c).

the principle of open justice and AIM CRI are not, as I understand it, seeking to publish the information received but wish to use it to mitigate labour exploitation.

[9]                 In this case, however, I accept the Crown’s submission that the value to AIM CRI of the references in the evidence to Jobsort Ltd and its directors is far outweighed by the volume of personal information contained in the evidence given by the witnesses who have name suppression. I find it is inappropriate in these circumstances to grant the request.

[10]I therefore decline the application.

Result

[11]The application for access to court documents is declined.

Cull J