Television New Zealand Limited v The Coroners Court at Palmerston North
[2019] NZHC 1410
•19 June 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE
CIV 2019-454-11
[2019] NZHC 1410
BETWEEN TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Applicant
AND
THE CORONERS COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH
First Respondent
AND
KARYN LONIA GOLDINGHAM
Second Respondent
Hearing: 19 June 2019 Counsel:
E D Nilsson and C E Grenfell for Applicant First Respondent abides
No Appearance for Second Respondent
Judgment:
19 June 2019
JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J
[1] Section 74 of the Coroners Act 2006 allows a coroner to suppress evidence, submissions and the names of witnesses appearing at an inquest. The statutory test is that the coroner is:
satisfied that it is in the interests of justice, decency, public order, or personal privacy to do so.
TELEVISION NZ LTD v THE CORONERS COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH [2019] NZHC 1410 [19 June 2019]
[2] In an inquest concerning the death of Mrs Anna Godfrey, the coroner suppressed the name of a witness, citing personal privacy. Television New Zealand Limited, as a person affected by the order, has applied for a review of the order. The witness who was the subject of the order, Ms Karyn Goldingham, initially opposed the application but shortly before the hearing withdrew her opposition. In these circumstances, the Court being satisfied the application should be granted, only a brief recital of the background is required.
[3] Mrs Godfrey died by suicide. There was a focus at the inquest on events in the days leading up to Mrs Godfrey’s death. The coroner held that Ms Goldingham was Ms Godfrey’s primary support person at this time and the only local person who had knowledge of how poor Mrs Godfrey’s state of mind was.
[4] The public interest in all of this is that Mrs Goldingham offered paid services to the public as a spiritual leader and a master soul healer. Her relationship with Mrs Godfrey appeared to be a mixture of friendship and commercial services, but there is no doubt over the years Mrs Godfrey paid Ms Goldingham for some assistance. Concerning Ms Goldingham, the coroner concluded:
[39] I do not think that the advice that Karyn offered Anna caused Anna to take her life. I do not think Karyn’s advice had any value but that is different from thinking that it contributed to Anna’s death. Sadly however, it is possible that the outcome for Anna might have been different if Karyn had disclosed to family or to peer group review what was happening between herself and Anna. Karyn’s advice and assistance was sincerely given. She did not set out to cause mischief and indeed she did not actively cause it but she did cause an opportunity to offer help and assistance to be lost. That is not to say of course that the outcome for Anna would necessarily have been any different even if proper intervention had been possible.
[5] In the lead up to this hearing material was filed indicating Ms Goldingham was continuing to proffer her services. She subsequently filed an affidavit saying she had ceased and had retrained as a life coach. Either way there remains a public interest in her activities that place her in a very different position from, for example, a friend who may have just misread the situation.
[6] The correct approach to suppression decisions has been considered in several cases.1 In the unopposed circumstances of this case, it is unnecessary for me to expand on the issue. Here, other than saying the ground of suppression was personal privacy, no reason was given by the coroner.
[7] Looking at it afresh, I cannot identify any aspect of the case that would support name suppression for the reason given. Ms Goldingham was involved with Mrs Godfrey on a commercial basis. She offers not inexpensive services to the public, services which the coroner is in his reasons is plainly sceptical of, and sees dangers in. The coroner said aspects of her evidence caused him serious concern and held that Ms Goldingham was completely out of her depth in her efforts to counsel a suicidal woman. There is no aspect of personal privacy that arises, and there are no personal details in the ruling, either about Ms Goldingham or the relationship between the two women, that might support a suppression order of the type made. Further, had there been some basis for suppression, there are legitimate public interest aspects particular to the case that would need to be assessed. That was not expressly done in the decision under review.
Conclusion
[8] The application for a review of the decision to suppress Ms Goldingham’s name is successful, and the name suppression order is revoked.
Simon France J
1 The analysis required when orders are being made under s 74 of the Coroners Act 2006 have been considered in Matenga v Dunedin Coroners Court [2014] NZHC 2994, [2015] NZAR 289 and Gravatt v Auckland Coroners Court [2013] NZHC 390, [2013] NZAR 345.
0