Legal Research
Cases
R v Tully

R v Tully

Case [2016] NZHC 621 8 April 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-009-008232 [2016] NZHC 621

THE QUEEN

v

RUSSELL JOHN TULLY

Hearing: 7 April 2016

Appearances:

M van Beynen in person for Fairfax Media
B Stanaway for Ministry of Social Development
M Zarifeh for the Crown

R J Tully appearing in person via AVL J Rapley as Amicus Curiae

Judgment:

8 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] Before the commencement of Mr Tully’s trial I made an order prohibiting the publication of the CCTV footage from inside the WINZ offices and still images lifted from that record to be produced during the course of the trial.1 These exhibits capture Mr Tully moving around the WINZ office discharging the shotgun and shooting WINZ staff members.

[2] The order was to have permanent effect. It was made out of concern for the interests of the victims and their families arising from the graphic nature of what was captured on the CCTV footage. After the conclusion of the trial Radio NZ sought to
review the suppression order and made application for the CCTV footage to be

1 R v Tully, CRI-2014-009-008232, 22 February 2014 [Minute].

R v RUSSELL JOHN TULLY [2016] NZHC 621 [8 April 2016]

released for publication. I maintained the order, however I expressed concern about suppressing such a central piece of evidence in the trial which was of legitimate public interest.

[3] The possibility of still images from the CCTV footage being made available for publication was raised. Such images would show only the gunman and would not include WINZ staff members or victims. The Crown agreed to discuss with representatives of the media and in particular Mr van Beynen on behalf of Fairfax New Zealand, whether a consensus could be reached about the release of some images lifted from the CCTV footage. A number of these photos had been included in the trial photograph booklet produced in evidence. It was not apparent that publication of such images would impinge upon the reasons and purpose for suppressing the CCTV footage in the interests of the victims and their families.

[4] Subsequently I was advised by the Crown that the Ministry of Social Development opposed the publication of any still photographs and sought to be heard on the issue. As a result it was necessary to convene a further hearing. Faced with opposition to any images being released for publication, Mr van Beynen on behalf of Fairfax New Zealand made application for the order suppressing the CCTV footage be reviewed.

The material in question

[5] The CCTV footage from inside the WINZ office was produced at trial as an exhibit and played to the jury. The footage captures Mr Tully’s entry into the office, his shooting of the receptionist, Mrs Noble, his movements into the body of the office and his repeated discharge of the shotgun. The footage includes Mr Tully’s shooting of Ms Curtis under her desk and his movements to the rear of the office where Ms Cleveland was trapped…

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 Tully

Details

AGLC: R v Tully [2016] NZHC 621
Case: [2016] NZHC 621
Decision Date: 8 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tully, the Court considered the suppression of CCTV footage and still images taken from that footage, which depicted the accused committing violent acts at a WINZ office. The Court had previously made a permanent suppression order regarding the footage and stills, but Fairfax Media sought to review the order, arguing that the suppression impeded open reporting of the trial and the public's right to understand the evidence presented. The Crown agreed to discuss releasing some of the still images with the media, but the Ministry of Social Development opposed any release of images, leading to a hearing on the matter. The Court found that the statutory criteria for suppression had been met, as publication of the footage would likely cause undue hardship to the victims and their families. The Court then considered whether suppression should be maintained in the exercise of its discretion, balancing the media's interests against the victims' interests. The Court decided that suppressing the footage was necessary to protect the dignity of the victims and avoid distress to their families from viewing the explicit and disturbing images. The Court also determined that suppression of four specific still photographs from the footage would not be justified, as they did not depict the victims or the accused committing the violent acts. The Court modified the suppression order to allow the release of these four images, finding that there was a legitimate public interest in the media's ability to report on the evidence of the accused's offending.

The final orders were that the suppression order for the internal CCTV footage of the WINZ office remains in place, but is modified to no longer include photographs 124, 126, 127, and 128 from the photo booklet produced as an exhibit at trial. An interim order was made to continue suppression of the four still photographs until 5.00 pm on Tuesday, 12 April 2016, to allow parties to consider their positions and rights of appeal.

Orders