Teacher v Stuff Limited - [2019] NZHC 1170

ORDER SUPPRESSING THE IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT, OR ANY DETAILS LEADING TO IDENTIFICATION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2019-409-000272

[2019] NZHC 1170

BETWEEN
TEACHER

Applicant

AND

STUFF LIMITED

First Respondent

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Second Respondent

Teleconference: 24 May 2019

Appearances:

J H M Eaton QC for Applicant

R K P Stewart for First Respondent J M Webber for Second Respondent

Judgment:

27 May 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] By application dated 24 May 2019 Stuff Ltd (Stuff) applies to revoke interim orders made by the Court on an ex-parte basis on the evening of 22 May 2019.1 The orders made at that date were orders preventing Stuff from identifying the applicant, or publishing details likely to lead to identification, as the person subject to the investigation at Marlborough Boys College.2 That order was to remain in place pending further order of the Court, with leave granted to the respondents to apply for variation or discharge on short notice. Such an application has now been made.

1 The applicant’s name is not provided in order to protect his/her identity.
2 Teacher v Stuff Ltd [2019] NZHC 1132.

TEACHER v STUFF LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1170 [27 May 2019]

[2] I convened a telephone conference on the morning of 24 May 2019 to consider Stuff’s application which was attended by Mr Stewart for Stuff, and Mr Eaton QC for the applicant. Mr Webber for the Police did not appear at that conference, but subsequently filed a memorandum dated 24 May 2019 advising that the Police supported the continuation of the injunction in order to preserve the applicant’s fair trial rights, and the right to seek name suppression in the event of charges.

Background

[3] There have been a number of media reports of allegations that a teacher at Marlborough Boys College has engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with students. The College duly referred the matter to the Police, and the allegations are subject to active investigation. That investigation is being conducted by Detective Sergeant Woodley as the investigator in charge.

[4] The allegations encompass conduct involving potential offending, and accordingly criminal charges. At the hearing on 22 May Mr Eaton for the applicant indicated that the Police were not in a position to confirm whether charges would be laid, but that there was a distinct prospect that this would occur.

[5] The media organisations that have reported on these allegations includes Stuff, who have posted stories about the matter. Mr Stewart for Stuff explained that other media organisations had also run stories, including the New Zealand Herald and Radio New Zealand. He also indicated that the identity of the applicant was widely known amongst the local community. He indicated that a Christchurch Press journalist had been in contact with the Police who had indicated that the Police were not in a position to indicate one way or another whether charges would arise. The journalist also made contact with…

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 Teacher v Stuff Limited

Details

AGLC: Teacher v Stuff Limited [2019] NZHC 1170
Case: [2019] NZHC 1170
Decision Date: 27 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application by Stuff Ltd (Stuff) to revoke interim orders made on an ex-parte basis, which aimed to prevent the identification of the applicant, a teacher at Marlborough Boys College, as the person under investigation for inappropriate sexual conduct with students. The interim orders were initially made on 22 May 2019 and were to remain in effect until further order of the Court. The Police supported the continuation of the injunction to protect the applicant's fair trial rights and the right to seek name suppression if charges were laid.

The legal issues the Court needed to decide were whether the interim orders should be revoked and whether the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the risk of contempt of Court by granting an injunction when the commencement of criminal proceedings was highly likely. The Court also had to consider the balance between the public’s right to receive information and the right of an accused to receive a fair trial.

The Court found that it did have the inherent jurisdiction to grant such orders and that the interim orders should not be discharged. The Court held that the potential for criminal charges to be laid against the applicant was a real prospect, and the nature of the possible offending was such that name suppression orders would likely be granted if charges were laid. The Court noted that the media's role needed to be respected, but also expected the media to act responsibly in light of the criminal justice process. The Court further found that Stuff's approach contrasted with other mainstream media organisations, and the lack of a clear undertaking not to publish the applicant's name necessitated the continuation of the orders. The Court varied the orders to remain in place until the District Court had made a decision on any suppression orders.

Final Orders:
- The application to discharge the interim orders is dismissed.
- The interim orders are varied to remain in place until the District Court has made a decision on any suppression orders.

Orders