S v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 37/2015
[2015] NZSC 103
BETWEEN

S
Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN
Respondent
Court:

William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ

Counsel:
Judgment:

14 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Details suppressed until final disposition of trial.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read S v The Queen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] NZSC 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand presided over a case involving an applicant seeking to restrict the publication of judicial proceedings, including the result of the case, in the media or on the internet, until the final disposition of a retrial. The respondent, the Crown, argued against such restrictions. The court, consisting of William Young, Glazebrook, and Arnold JJ, was tasked with determining whether the applicant's request for a publication ban was justified. The case raised significant issues concerning the balance between the public's right to know and the necessity to protect the fairness of a judicial process, especially in light of the retrial that was to occur.

The court considered the legal principles underpinning freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. It examined whether the public interest in the dissemination of information about the case outweighed the potential prejudice that could arise from premature publication. The court also evaluated the precedent set by previous cases and the implications for the administration of justice. The Supreme Court acknowledged the gravity of ensuring a fair trial while also recognising the public's interest in transparency and accountability in judicial processes.

After careful deliberation, the Supreme Court determined that the applicant's request for a publication ban was warranted. The court recognised the potential for significant prejudice to the fairness of the retrial if the result of the proceedings were made public prematurely. Consequently, the court granted the applicant's request, prohibiting the publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings, including the result, until the final disposition of the retrial. The court allowed for publication in law reports or law digests to maintain legal precedents and educational resources. This decision reflects the court's commitment to safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process while balancing the broader public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.