R v Q - [2014] NZHC 2945

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-090-005262 [2014] NZHC 2945

THE QUEEN

v

Q & M

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

25 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 November 2014 at 2.15 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

R v Q & M [2014] NZHC 2945 [25 November 2014]

[1] Mr and Mrs Dudley request that a copy of the court file in this proceeding be released to Ms Ruth Money, whom they have appointed their representative under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. The application is made on the basis that as parents of the deceased they are the victims in this case, and that they need the information to help them to move forward. They say that allowing access is the humane thing to do and is in the spirit of open justice. They submit that given the Court proceedings have concluded, allowing them access will do no harm. Instead, it will help them with their healing and understanding. In the future their son Stephen’s siblings may also wish to understand details of the proceeding, and Mr and Mrs Dudley suggest that access to this material will help.

[2] The Crown does not oppose the request, subject to the Court imposing appropriate conditions and restrictions. It suggests that it is appropriate to withhold documents containing personal information relating to Q and M. It identifies specifically several psychological reports, pre-sentence reports and other material that contains information falling into this category. The Crown also submits that the documentation should be released on the condition that there is no further distribution or publication of the information.

[3] Mr Mansfield for M opposes the application. He expresses concern that given the identity of the agent nominated by the Dudleys, Ms Ruth Money, the purpose of the request is simply to facilitate another agency having access to the material. Ms Money is associated with the Red Raincoat NZ Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust. He opposes the application, but says that if a more focused application was made, in terms of the information and documents to which access is sought, that opposition would be reviewed. If there is to be disclosure, he submits that directions should be made limiting the use and any publication of the documents.

[4] Mr Munro for Q also opposes the application, for similar reasons to those put forward by Mr Mansfield. Mr Munro submits that disclosure should be subject to a condition that the documents be read in the presence of the Crown and not copied or taken from the viewing room.

Framework for accessing court documents under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012

[5] Access to court documents in criminal proceedings is governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012. Rule 6.8(1) provides that any person may request access to the court file after a proceeding has been completed, which is after all applicable appeal periods have expired as they have…

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 Q

Details

AGLC: R v Q [2014] NZHC 2945
Case: [2014] NZHC 2945
Decision Date: 25 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Q involved the parents of a deceased individual, Mr and Mrs Dudley, seeking access to the court file to better understand the proceedings and sentencing decisions. The Crown and the defence opposed the application, citing privacy and confidentiality concerns, particularly regarding sensitive personal information. The court was tasked with balancing the rights of the victims to seek information with the privacy rights of the accused and the principles of open justice and fair administration of justice.

The court considered the nature of the request and the reasons provided by the Dudleys, who sought access to aid their understanding and healing process. The court acknowledged the importance of the principle of open justice, which supports the victims' right to understand the evidence and arguments that influenced sentencing. However, the court also recognised the need to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the accused, particularly sensitive personal information contained in psychological reports and pre-sentence reports.

After weighing these considerations, the court determined that the Dudleys should be granted access to specific parts of the court file, such as judgments, indictments, sentencing submissions, and name suppression applications, but with conditions to prevent the publication or further distribution of the material. The court also decided that certain documents, such as unsworn witness statements and private information in psychological reports, should not be released. The court imposed conditions to ensure the Dudleys' representative, Ms Ruth Money, would not further distribute or publish the information, and only use it for discussing it with the Dudley family.

The court's decision balanced the victims' right to understand the proceedings with the privacy rights of the accused, ensuring that sensitive personal information was protected while still allowing the Dudleys access to relevant information. The final orders granted access to specific parts of the court file under the imposed conditions, ensuring that the Dudleys could achieve their goal of understanding the proceedings without compromising the privacy and confidentiality of the accused.

Orders