Introduction  [1]
Background  [3]
High Court  [11]
Inherent jurisdiction  [14]
             New Zealand authorities  [14]
                  (a) Taylor v Attorney-General  [17]
                  (b) Broadcasting Corporation v Attorney-General  [24]
                  (c) Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  [29]
                  (d) Supreme Court authorities  [30]
             English authorities  [36]
                  (a) Attorney-General v Leveller  [38]
                  (b) Independent Publishing v Attorney-General of Trinidad and
  Tobago [41]
             Other Commonwealth authorities  [56]
             Decision  [59]
                   (a) New Zealand and English approaches compared  [59]

(b) New Zealand context [66]
(c) Conclusion [74]

Statutory provisions  [79]
              The Criminal Justice Act 1985  [79]
              The Criminal Procedure Act 2011  [85]
Other grounds of appeal  [92]
             Nullity  [92]
             Bringing the administration of justice into disrepute or abuse                 [97]
             Unreasonable limitation on freedom of expression  [99]
             Decision wrong in law  [100]
             Failure to prove harm  [101]
             Apparent bias  [102]
             Excessive sentence  [104]
Result  [106]

Introduction

Vincent Siemer appeals against a finding of contempt made in the High Court[1] for breaching a suppression order made earlier in that Court.[2] He appeals also against his sentence of six weeks imprisonment,[3] which has been stayed pending our decision.
[1]The Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Siemer HC Wellington CIV-2010-404-8559, 4 July 2011, per MacKenzie and Simon France JJ.
[2]R v B HC Auckland CRI-2007-085-7842, 9 December 2010.
[3]The Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Siemer HC Wellington CIV-2010-404-8559, 2 September 2011.
Mr Siemer’s appeal raises many grounds. One of them is tenable and significant: it is whether this Court’s decision in Taylor v Attorney-General,[4] recognising the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make suppression of publication orders, correctly represents the law of New Zealand.

Background

[4]Taylor v Attorney-General [1975] 2 NZLR 675 (CA).

On 9 December 2010 Winkelmann J, the Chief High Court Judge, delivered a judgment in R v B (the 9 December 2010 judgment).[5] The Judge’s decision was one of a number of pre-trial rulings under s 344A of the Crimes Act 1961 in the highly publicised prosecution of 18 people for breaches of the Arms Act 1981 (the Hamed proceedings). Mr Siemer was not one of them. Winkelmann J ordered severance of the trial of three of the accused and trial before a Judge sitting alone without a jury of the charges against the remaining 15.[6]
[5]R v B,…

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 Siemer v Solicitor-General

Details

AGLC: Siemer v Solicitor-General [2012] NZCA 188
Case: [2012] NZCA 188
Decision Date: 11 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal dismissed Vincent Siemer's appeal against a finding of contempt and a six-week prison sentence for breaching a suppression order made by the High Court. The suppression order was issued by Winkelmann J, the Chief High Court Judge, prohibiting the publication of a judgment in the Hamed proceedings. Siemer published the judgment on his websites in breach of the order. The appeal raised multiple grounds, one of which was whether the Court's decision in Taylor v Attorney-General correctly represented the law of New Zealand, which recognises the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to make suppression of publication orders. The Court of Appeal concluded that Taylor and its application to this case remained good law in New Zealand. The Court of Appeal also rejected Siemer's argument that the finding of contempt was a nullity, and his submission that the High Court's finding of contempt constituted an unreasonable limitation on his freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal dismissed Siemer's appeal and ordered him to commence serving his six-week prison sentence.

Orders