R v Perry

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 131/2015
[2016] NZSC 102

BETWEEN	THE QUEEN Appellant
AND	P Respondent

Hearing:

Court:

21 April 2016

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ

Counsel:

Judgment:

12 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Details suppressed until final disposition of trial.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Perry, the Crown appealed against an order made by a District Court Judge that prohibited the publication of any information relating to the proceedings against the respondent, Perry, until the final disposition of the trial. The Crown sought to challenge the extensive nature of the suppression order, which included the prohibition of reporting the result of the trial. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the District Court had the authority to make such a broad suppression order and whether the order was proportionate to the interests at stake.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the District Court had the power to make a suppression order that effectively prohibited any publication of the trial proceedings and outcome until the final disposition of the trial. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the suppression order was proportionate to the legitimate interests of privacy and the administration of justice, particularly in light of the principles of open justice and freedom of expression enshrined in New Zealand law.

The Supreme Court held that the District Court did possess the inherent jurisdiction to make such an order, provided it was exercised judiciously and with proper regard to the principles of open justice and freedom of expression. The Court found that the District Court had correctly identified the need to balance the respondent's privacy interests against the public's right to know about the proceedings. However, the Supreme Court determined that the breadth of the suppression order was not proportionate to the legitimate interests at stake, as it effectively prevented any reporting on the trial until its conclusion, including the result. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court should have imposed a more narrowly tailored suppression order that would have allowed for limited reporting while still protecting the respondent's privacy interests.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the suppression order, directing the District Court to make a new order that appropriately balanced the competing interests. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need for suppression orders to be narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the need for careful consideration of the principles of open justice and freedom of expression when imposing suppression orders in criminal proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established