R v Tauroa - [2020] NZHC 727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2018-225-000004

[2020] NZHC 727

THE QUEEN

v

PIHAMA JOHN TAUROA

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

S N McKenzie and W T Chapman for the Crown S A Saunderson-Warner for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 April 2020

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] Blair Jackson of Stuff Ltd has requested access to the cultural report filed in relation to Mr Tauroa’s sentencing. Mr Tauroa opposes the application.

Relevant law

[2] Mr Jackson’s application for access is under r 11, Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules):

11 Any person may ask to access documents

(1)This rule applies if a person is not entitled to access a document relating to a proceeding or an appeal under rule 8 or 9.

R v TAUROA [2020] NZHC 727 [8 April 2020]

(2)A person may ask to access any document by providing the Registrar of the relevant court registry with a letter, an email, or any other written form of request that—
(a)identifies the person and gives the person’s address; and

(b)sets out sufficient particulars of the document to enable the Registrar to identify it; and
(c)gives reasons for asking to access the document, which must set out the purpose for which the access is sought; and
(d)sets out any conditions of the right of access that the person proposes as conditions that he or she would be prepared to meet were a Judge to impose those conditions (for example, conditions that prevent or restrict the person from disclosing the document or contents of the document, or conditions that enable the person to view but not copy the document).

…

(7)A Judge may—

(a)grant a request for access under this rule in whole or in part—

(i) without conditions; or

(ii) subject to any conditions that the Judge thinks appropriate; or
(b)refuse the request; or

(c)refer the request to a Registrar for determination by that Registrar.

(8)Without limiting the powers in subclause (7), the Judge may refuse a request for access under this rule solely for the reason that the request does not comply with subclause (2)(a), (b), (c), or (d).

[3] Rule 12 provides the matters to be considered when determining a request under s 11:

… the Judge must consider the nature of, and the reasons given for, the request and take into account each of the following matters that is relevant to the request or any objection to the request:
(1)the orderly and fair administration of justice:

(2)the right of a defendant in a criminal proceeding to a fair trial:

(3)the right to bring and defend civil proceedings without the disclosure of any more information about the private lives of individuals, or matters that are commercially sensitive, than is necessary to satisfy the principle of open justice:
(4)the protection of other confidentiality and privacy interests (including those of children and other vulnerable members of the community) and any privilege held by, or available…

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 Tauroa

Details

AGLC: R v Tauroa [2020] NZHC 727
Case: [2020] NZHC 727
Decision Date: 8 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Pihama John Tauroa (Cri-2018-225-000004) was heard on the papers. The application for access to a cultural report filed in relation to Mr Tauroa's sentencing was made by Blair Jackson of Stuff Ltd. Mr Tauroa opposed the application. The legal issues before the court involved the application for access to court documents under rule 11 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, and the consideration of the relevant matters under rule 12 when determining such a request.

The court considered the nature of the request and the reasons given for it, along with the relevant matters outlined in rule 12. The matters considered included the orderly and fair administration of justice, the right of a defendant to a fair trial, the protection of privacy interests, the principle of open justice, and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. The court also noted that the Official Information Act 1982 and Privacy Act 1993 do not apply to court documents.

After considering the submissions from both parties and reviewing similar cases, the court concluded that the privacy interests of Mr Tauroa and his whānau outweighed any considerations of open justice and freedom of information. The cultural report contained a substantial amount of extremely personal and private information, and the principle of open justice had already been satisfied through the information presented in open court and the sentencing notes. The court found that there was no public interest in viewing the balance of the report, as it would simply provide highly personal information about an individual.

The court declined the application for access to the cultural report. The final orders of the court were that the application for access to the cultural report filed in relation to Mr Tauroa's sentencing was declined.

Orders