Stace

[2013] NZHC 3037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 1980-085-335014
CRI 1981-085-834602
CRI 1981-085-255290
CRI 1981-085-626190
CRI 1981-085-713472
CRI 1981-085-693897
CRI 1981-085-441879
CRI 1981-085-502335
CRI 1981-085-834784
CRI 1981-085-576436
CRI 1981-085-202780
CRI 1981-085-062848

CRI 1981-085-598900 [2013] NZHC 3037

IN THE MATTER OF       an application to access court records re R v Minnitt and R v Morrison, Henry, Gray, Henry, McLean, Puha, Reihana, Thompson, Walker, Witehira, Whittington, Matthews, Petero and Finau

RACHEL STACE Applicant

On the papers

Judgment:                15 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]      Before me for determination is an application from a television researcher for access to the transcripts (that is, the notes of evidence) of two murder trials in the

1980s in which Michael Bungay QC (now deceased) was a defence counsel.    In response to that application I issued a minute in the following terms:

[1]      Before me is a request by a Ms Rachel Stace, a television researcher, to access the transcripts from the following two criminal trials:

STACE [2013] NZHC 3037 [15 November 2013]

(a)       The trial of David Minnitt for the murder of his wife, Leigh Minnitt, in August 1980 before Savage J and a jury.  Mr Minnitt was found guilty of manslaughter.

(b)       The  trial  of  Massey  Morrison, Toko  Henry, Albert  Gray, Whetu Henry, John McLean, Stewart Puha, David Reihana, Robert Thompson, Whaingaroa Walker, Michael Witehira, Leslie Whittington, Benjamin Matthews, Vaipapa Petero and Pusa Finau for the murder of Lester Epps, the leader of the Wellington chapter of the Mongrel Mob, in April/May 1982 before Savage J and a jury. All the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter.

[2]       Ms  Stace  requests  these  transcripts  so  they  can  be  used  as background material for a television drama to be produced by Screentime for Television New Zealand.  Ms Stace says that the transcripts would give the script writer valuable information to enable him or her to make the drama historically correct.

[3]       This request is governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.  A person requesting access must serve notice of the request on any person who, in the opinion of the Judge, may be adversely affected by the request.   The Judge may however dispense with service of notice if it would be impracticable to require notice to be served.  Once adversely affected parties have been notified, the Judge must determine the request, taking into account the matters referred to in r 6.9 and 6.10.

[4]       In the present case, having reviewed the court files, I am minded to grant the request.  While the events covered by the trial involve personal and traumatic matters for the victims and their friends and families in particular, those events have been aired in the public forum of the courtroom.  Of the considerations in rule 6.10(2), the factor entitled to most weight in this case appears to be the freedom to seek, receive and impart information.  Out of caution, however, I consider it appropriate to obtain the views of counsel (if available) as to whether there are any persons who may be “adversely affected” by the request and who may wish to be heard.

[5]      In relation to the Minnitt file, counsel that may be able to assist are: (a)     Crown prosecutor, Wellington; and

(b)       J M Morrison, Wellington.

[6]       In relation to the Morrison and others file, counsel that may be able to assist are as follows:

(a)      Crown prosecutor, Wellington; (b) J Smith, Wellington;

(c)       J A Porter, Wellington;

(d)       I M Antunovich, Wellington; and

(e)       H Croft, Wellington.

[7]      If those counsel have any concerns or other comments about the application, could they please raise them within three weeks of this minute.

[2]      Following that minute I received a response from two of the counsel listed in my minute.  Helen Croft advised that it would now be impossible for her to obtain instructions, and that she had no particular comments to make and would leave the matter for me to consider.  John Morrison advised that he could not recall any person who might be adversely affected by the request.

[3]      It is always difficult to determine whether any person may be adversely affected by an application of this kind made many years after the hearing.  However, for the reasons set out at [4] of my minute, and in the absence of any counsel at the time of the trials recalling any matter that may be relevant to the request or otherwise responding with relevant information, I grant the application.

Mallon J