The Queen v TWW

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 TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

NOTE: HIGH COURT SUPPRESSION ORDER UNDER S 205 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 80/2014
[2014] NZSC 142

BETWEEN	THE QUEEN Applicant
AND	TWW Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:
Judgment:	10 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Details suppressed until final disposition of trial.

____________________________________________________________________

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand presided over a case involving the applicant, The Queen, and the respondent, TWW. The central dispute revolves around a suppression order concerning the publication of the judgment, proceedings, and the result of the case. The suppression order was intended to prevent any form of public disclosure until the final disposition of the trial, with the exception of legal reports and digests. This case underscores the court's consideration of the delicate balance between the public's right to know and the necessity to protect certain judicial proceedings from premature public exposure.

The primary legal issues before the court included the scope and application of suppression orders under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, particularly Section 205. The court had to determine whether the stringent measures imposed on media and public dissemination were justified under the circumstances and whether they adhered to the principles of open justice and transparency. Another significant consideration was the impact of such orders on the respondent's right to a fair trial.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the importance of preserving the integrity of the judicial process. The court emphasised that suppression orders should be applied judiciously and only when there is a clear and present risk that such publication could prejudice the fair administration of justice. The court upheld the existing suppression order, affirming its necessity in light of the particular sensitivities of the case. The reasoning was grounded in the potential for significant public interest and the possible ramifications on the trial's fairness.

The final orders of the court maintained the existing suppression order, allowing for publication only in legal reports and digests. This decision highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that judicial processes remain transparent and fair, while also safeguarding the interests of the parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established