R v Sroubek aka Antolik

[2018] NZHC 2876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2013-404-000328

[2018] NZHC 2876

THE QUEEN

v

KAREL SROUBEK aka JAN ANTOLIK

CRI-2012-004-009674

THE QUEEN

v

KAREL SROUBEK aka JAN ANTOLIK & ORS

…/2

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	6 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Application to access Court Records

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 November 2018 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to:            R Ogilvy, Senior Investigator, Immigration New Zealand

R v SROUBEK [2018] NZHC 2876 [6 November 2018]

CRI-2009-004-009598

THE QUEEN

v

JAN ANTOLIK & ORS

[1]        Mr Ogilvy, a Senior Investigator with Immigration New Zealand seeks access to the following categories of documents from files relating to Karel Sroubek, also known as Jan Antolik:

·bail applications;

·bail variation applications;

·bail decisions;

·bail appeals.

[2]There are a number of files relating to Mr Sroubek held by the Court:

CRI-2009-004-9598	Bail variation file
CRI-2012-004-9674	Trial file (manufacturing controlled drug)
CRI-2013-404-0021	Appeal against conviction for refusing to provide blood specimen (abandoned)
CRI-2013-404-0328	Trial file (importing Class B, possession for supply Class B drugs)
CRI-2016-404-0207	Name suppression appeal

[3]        The most relevant file in relation to bail is CRI-2009-004-9598, but there are other bail decisions and associated documents on CRI-2012-004-9674, and CRI-2013- 404-0328.

[4]        Rule 8 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court) documents Rules 2017 applies to the request for access to decisions of the Court in relation to bails, in particular    rr 8(3) and 8(4). Section 19, Bail Act 2000 is also relevant.

[5]        The general rule that any person has the right to access any judgment, order, or minute, including the reasons under r 8(3) is subject to r 8(4)(a), which provides that in relation to bail judgments such access may only be permitted by a Judge. Access is also subject to the restrictions in r 6(a), including suppression.

[6]        The purpose of restricting access to bail decisions is to ensure fair trial rights and in particular to avoid adverse pre-trial publicity. In the case of Mr Sroubek, aka Antolik, that consideration does not apply. The trials to which the bail decisions relate have been held. He does not currently face any further charges. Section 19(3) Bail Act 2000 applies. Suppression is not relevant. There has also been significant publicity regarding his situation. There is no reason why the request for access to bail decisions should not be granted.

[7]        That leaves the more general request for access to the bail applications, bail variation applications, and “bail appeals” themselves. Those requests relate to information other than the decisions of the Court and relate to further information which may be on the relevant files.

[8]        The request for access to the files generally is to be treated as an application under r 11. I consider it impractical and unnecessary to require a copy of the application to be served. There is a proper reason for the request. It is to enable Immigration New Zealand to provide information to the Minister in relation to the review concerning Mr Antolik’s deportation status.

[9]        In determining that request for access I have regard to the considerations in    r 12. The particularly relevant considerations in the present care are:  the protection of the privacy interests, the principle of open justice, and the freedom to seek, receive and impart information.

[10]      In addition, in the present case, there is the public interest in providing relevant information to ensure that all relevant information is available to enable the current review to be completed. As the criminal proceedings that the files relate to have been completed, open justice has a greater weight at this time as does any general issues of privacy.

[11]      I am satisfied that the public interest in the review of Mr Antolik’s deportation status being fully informed outweighs any issues of privacy, particularly given the publicity concerning this matter, so that access to the files should be granted for the purposes sought by Mr Ogilvy.

Result

[12]      The request to access files CRI-2009-004-9598, CRI-2012-404-9674 and CRI- 2013-404-0328 is granted.

[13]      Mr Ogilvy or his agent may access the above files and on payment of the applicable fee take photocopies of relevant documents from the files.

Venning J