R v T HC Tauranga CRI 2009-087-1868

[2009] NZHC 1449

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI 2009-087-1868

THE QUEEN

v

T

Hearing:         20 October 2009

Appearances: R Ronayne for the Crown

R Gowing for Ms T 
H Wild for Television New Zealand

Judgment:      20 October 2009 at 4:15 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Application by Television New Zealand Limited)

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 October 2009 at 4:15 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:

Mr R Ronayne, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

Mr R Gowing, Gowing & Co., Solicitors, Whakatane

Ms H Wild, Television New Zealand, Auckland

R V T HC TAU CRI 2009-087-1868  20 October 2009

[1]      Ms T   is to be sentenced on 27 October 2009 for the manslaughter of her partner, Dillon Hitaua.  Television New Zealand Limited (TVNZ) has applied to film the sentencing for broadcast on its news and current affairs programme.   The application is opposed by Ms T  .  It is supported by the Crown.

[2]      Ms  T    opposes  the  application  in  the  interests  of  her  three  younger children who are also the children of Mr Hitaua.  The children are aged 14, 15 and

18.   Ms T  ’s concern was expressed as follows in a memorandum from Mr

Gowing on her behalf:

The loss of their father has had a significant impact on the children particularly the youngest child.

Whilst the Accused accepts that there will be reporting of her case in the local press she is concerned about the additional impact on her children of national coverage that will come about through her sentencing being filmed by Television New Zealand.

[3]      Because  of  the  opposition  to  the  application  I  convened  a  telephone conference with Ms Wild for TVNZ, Mr Ronayne for the Crown and Mr Gowing.

[4]      Ms Wild supported the application by reference to the six factors set out in paragraph 2(2) of the In-Court Media Guidelines.  Ms Wild submitted that some of those factors weighed positively in support of the application and none weighed against it.  In respect of the children Ms Wild, whilst acknowledging the impact on them of any publicity, pointed out that there will be publicity in any event.  This is because there is no application for suppression.   And, as noted above, Ms T   accepts that there will be reporting of her case.

[5]      Mr Ronayne filed a memorandum setting out the reasons for the Crown’s support of the application by TVNZ.   The submissions in the memorandum were broadly to  the  same  effect  as  the  oral  submissions  made  by Ms  Wild  and  Mr Ronayne did not seek to elaborate on those.

[6]      Mr Gowing did not seek to reply to any material extent.

[7]      I  am  satisfied  that  my  discretion  should  be  exercised  in  favour  of  the application.   Several factors in the guidelines do positively support a grant of the application.   The interests of the children are important and do weigh against the grant of the application.  But I am not persuaded that the interests of the children outweigh reasons favouring granting the application.  As best as these things can be judged, I do not consider that the adverse effect on the children of an additional form of publicity, through a television news broadcast, will add materially to any adverse effects on them of the publicity that will occur through reports in the press.  I also note that, although Ms T   acknowledged that there will be reporting “in the local press” it is likely that there will be wider reporting in the press than that.

[8]      The application is granted subject to the standard conditions for television coverage.

Peter Woodhouse J