R v Q & M
[2015] NZHC 245
•23 February 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2013-090-005262 [2015] NZHC 245
THE QUEEN
v
Q & M
Hearing: On the papers Judgment:
23 February 2015
JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J
This judgment was delivered by me on 23 February 2015 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
R v Q & M [2015] NZHC 245 [23 February 2015]
[1] Fairfax Media request access to that portion of the file in this proceeding which has previously been released to Mr and Mrs Dudley.1 They seek access with the intention of publishing any information within it.
[2] The Crown opposes the application in respect of some portions of the documents to which the Dudleys had access. Its opposition is in respect of the sentencing submissions, affidavits in support of those submissions, name suppression applications and submissions. The Crown’s opposition is on the basis that granting access to these documents could facilitate publication of the names and identifying particulars of Q & M. The Crown also opposes access being granted to any remaining documents that were not provided to the Dudleys.
[3] Counsel for Q & M oppose the application because of the concern that publication of the information may facilitate identification of Q & M both of whom have name suppression.
[4] Having considered the competing submissions and the matters listed in r
6.10(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, I am satisfied that Fairfax Media should have access to the following component parts of the file:
(a) Judgments, minutes and sentencing notes.
(b)Indictments, amended indictments, applications to amend indictments, informations and summaries of fact.
(c) The formal written statements of Dr Paul Morrow and Professor A C Thomas, both provided in support of applications for leave to amend indictments.
(d) The sentencing submissions and the affidavits of M and Q filed in
support of those submissions. The psychologist’s report attached to
Q’s affidavit should be omitted from the information provided to
1 R v Q & M [2014] NZHC 2945.
Fairfax Media, as it was from the information provided to the
Dudleys.
(e) Applications for name suppression, including submissions. The psychologist’s report attached to the memorandum should be omitted, and any portions of the report included in submissions should also be redacted.
[5] Although the following documents were provided to the Dudleys, I consider that Fairfax Media should not have access to:
(a) Testimonial letters provided in support of Q & M at sentencing.
These contain a great deal of private information, and also information, publication of which would tend to identify Q & M. They cannot therefore be redacted in a way which preserves much content.
(b)The victim impact statements. These contain information provided for a particular purpose and I consider it would be a breach of the victims’ privacy to provide copies to Fairfax Media.
[6] All documents provided to Fairfax Media will be redacted to remove any names or identifying particulars of the defendants. The documents will also be redacted to remove private information that is of little public interest, namely:
(a) the contact addresses of counsel; and
(b) the names of registry staff that appear on some documents.
[7] I consider that providing a copy of the file in the redacted form indicated is the best way to balance the competing interests set out in r 6.10(2). Allowing access to the file in this form allows fair and accurate reporting of the proceeding. The redacting will help to ensure that the suppression orders that are in place are complied with thus minimising any risk of identifying Q or M. It will also ensure that the privacy interests of individuals involved with the proceeding are protected.
[8] While care will be taken in redacting the documents to minimise any risk of inadvertently publishing suppressed information, I note that the suppression orders remain in place. Fairfax Media must ensure that it does not breach those suppression orders through any subsequent publication.