R v Murray - [2015] NZHC 1952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-029-000756 [2015] NZHC 1952

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL THRIFT MURRAY

Hearing: 3-7, 10-14 August 2015

Appearances:

D G Johnstone and S McMullan for the Crown
M Dyhrberg QC and K Maxwell for the Defendant

N Bremner on behalf of TVNZ A Gillies on behalf of TV3

Judgment:

18 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 18 August 2015 at 9.30am
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………

R v MURRAY [2015] NZHC 1952 [18 August 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Murray has been found guilty of murder, and a conviction was entered on

14 August 2015. His trial commenced on 3 August 2015.

[2] Immediately before the trial commenced the Registrar received an application from a Mr Nick Baker of TVNZ. He sought to search the Court file and to obtain access to Mr Murray’s criminal history (if any). If there was a record of the criminal history on the file, he sought to copy it.

[3] I declined that application but indicated that I would re-consider it when a verdict was taken.

The application

[4] Notwithstanding that indication, on 13 August 2015, before the trial concluded, I received a further application from TVNZ. Once again it sought to search the Court file and access any criminal history that Mr Murray may have. The application stated that the purpose of the proposed search was to determine if Mr Murray has a criminal history, so that TVNZ could report quickly and accurately post-verdict. It was said that the speed with which events are reported online, and the demands on journalists in the wake of a verdict, make a post-verdict search difficult, if not impossible.

[5] On the same day, a similar application was received from a Ms Gillies, on behalf of Mediaworks – TV3.

[6] After I had heard the respective closings from counsel, but before I summed up, I heard both applications in chambers, in the presence of the accused.

[7] Ms Bremner, a reporter with TVNZ, appeared in support of the application. There was no appearance by the applicant, Mr Baker, or by the solicitor named on the application. Ms Bremner emphasised the difficulty that media organisations face post verdict. She confirmed that TVNZ would approach the matter responsibly and

undertook that it would not put any criminal record in the public domain prior to verdict.

[8] Much the same submissions were made by Ms Gillies, a reporter with TV3.

[9] Ms Dyhrberg opposed the application. She submitted that it was premature to allow media access to any criminal record that Mr Murray may have, and reiterated the view she had expressed when the matter first came before me, namely that the appropriate time to consider such an application is at sentencing.

[10] Mr Johnstone for the Crown was content to abide the decision of the Court. He did however comment there had been no reference to any convictions…

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 Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Murray [2015] NZHC 1952
Case: [2015] NZHC 1952
Decision Date: 18 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Justice Wylie delivered a judgment in the case of The Queen versus Michael Thrift Murray, which involved an application by TVNZ and TV3 to access Murray's criminal history. Murray had been found guilty of murder, and the media outlets sought access to his criminal history to report accurately post-verdict. The court had to decide whether it was appropriate to grant access to Murray's criminal history before the verdict was delivered.

Justice Wylie considered the Privacy Act 1993 and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 when making the decision. The court found that the media did not have a right to access or publish information that had not been presented at trial in open court. The court also considered the protection of Murray's privacy interests and the principle of open justice. The court concluded that a defendant with a criminal history has an expectation of privacy in relation to the same, and if and when a defendant is found guilty, it may be that their criminal history will become relevant and be referred to in sentencing, in open court. Prior to the verdict, defendants are entitled to expect that their private information will not be released to the media.

Justice Wylie declined the applications from TVNZ and TV3 to access Murray's criminal history before the verdict was delivered. The court indicated that it would give reasons for the decision in writing, and Justice Wylie delivered a judgment explaining the reasoning behind the decision. The judgment stated that the principle of open justice recognizes that the media's principal role is to report on what happens during the course of a hearing, and the media were given full access to the hearing without objection by the Crown or the defence.

In conclusion, the court found that the media did not have a right to access or publish information that had not been presented at trial in open court. The court considered the protection of Murray's privacy interests and the principle of open justice when making the decision. The court declined the applications from TVNZ and TV3 to access Murray's criminal history before the verdict was delivered. The court indicated that it would give reasons for the decision in writing, and Justice Wylie delivered a judgment explaining the reasoning behind the decision.

Orders