R v Walker
[2023] NZHC 1891
•19 July 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE
CRI-2022-016-480
[2023] NZHC 1891
THE KING v
GEORGE HALLET WALKER MERCEDIES GRACE
Counsel: C R Walker and C Stuart for Crown S Cassidy and A Gold for Walker
A Simperingham and H Tunstall for Grace
Judgment:
19 July 2023
JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J
[Media application]
[1] The Court has received an application by Ms Sarah Curtis for permission to take photographs at the sentencing of Mr Walker and Ms Grace on 21 July 2023 in the Gisborne High Court. Ms Curtis is a reporter at the Gisborne Herald, which is partnered to NZME and the New Zealand Herald. Ms Curtis’ application is out of time, but Ms Curtis says that her application should be approved owing to the public interest in seeing the faces of offenders convicted of serious crimes such as murder. Ms Curtis also highlights the prevalence of gangs in the Gisborne region as a matter of public interest.
[2] Counsel for Ms Grace opposes Ms Curtis’ application, saying that Ms Curtis was previously granted permission to take photos during the trial, and that a further photo at sentencing is therefore unnecessary. Counsel for Mr Walker agrees with that
R v WALKER (MEDIA APPLICATION) [2023] NZHC 1891 [19 July 2023]
position, and therefore also opposes Ms Curtis’ application. The Crown has indicated that it does not wish to be heard on Ms Curtis’ application.
[3] The In Court Media Guidelines 2016 (the Guidelines) provide that all matters relating to in-court media coverage are at the discretion of the Court.1 A defendant may only be photographed during sentencing if a Judge grants leave.2 Relatively recently, on an application to film, take photographs, and record sound during a sentencing hearing, Jagose J noted that the requirement for leave from a Judge to take photographs during a sentencing hearing is to be distinguished from the media’s entitlement to film or photograph a defendant “when giving evidence, or when sitting in the dock for the first 15 minutes of any sitting day, but not when, during that period,
… a sentencing is underway”.3
[4]Jagose J then stated:4
The Guidelines thus require special justification for filming or photographing a defendant during sentencing (or, and including sound recording, in my absence). Inferentially, by reference to the Guidelines’ guiding principles, filming or photographing a defendant during sentencing (or, and including sound recording, in my absence) will not in itself “provide or assist in providing an accurate, fair and balanced report of the hearing”. That is despite “the principle that the media have an important role in the reporting of trials [of which sentencing is a part] as the eyes and ears of the public”. No foundation has been proposed for granting the applicants leave to film or photograph Mr Talbot in court during sentencing (or, and including sound recording, in my absence).
(footnotes omitted)
[5] That reasoning is applicable to Ms Curtis’ application. The Guidelines indeed provide that special justification is required for filming or photographing a defendant during sentencing. Particularly in this case, as Ms Curtis already has taken photographs of Mr Walker and Ms Grace, I consider that there is no manner in which further photographs would “provide or assist in providing an accurate, fair and balanced report of the hearing”.
1 In Court Media Guidelines 2016, cl 4.1.
2 Schedule 2, cl 8.b.
3 R v Talbot [2019] NZHC 676 at [4]; citing In Court Media Guidelines 2016, sch 1, cls 9.a and 9.b.
4 At [5].
[6] Accordingly, I decline Ms Curtis’ application to take photographs of the defendants at their sentencing on 21 July 2023. Nevertheless, Ms Curtis may attend the hearing and report on it in the normal fashion, subject to the provisions in the Guidelines.
Churchman J
Solicitors:
Gold Legal Ltd, Waiuku for Walker Woodward Chrisp, Gisborne for Grace Crown Solicitor, Gisborne
cc: S Curtis, The Gisborne Herald
0