Vincent Ross Siemer v The Solicitor-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 37/2012
[2012[ NZSC 57

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Appellant

AND THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, Tipping and Chambers JJ

Counsel: T Ellis for Appellant
M F Laracy and G J Robins for Respondent

Judgment: 19 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases.

REASONS

We decline leave on the remaining issues advanced in the application for leave to appeal because we consider them to be unarguable.
If there is power for a court of criminal jurisdiction to suppress judgments, then it is clear any such order must be obeyed.[1] If someone thinks an order too broad, the correct procedure would be to have the order reviewed, not to breach it and then to argue whether it should have been in the terms in which it was propounded. The Solicitor-General does not have to establish risk of a fair trial right before the breach could constitute a contempt. The Solicitor-General does not have to prove harm in contempt proceedings brought on the basis of breach of a Court order. A lack of harm would be relevant, if at all, only to remedy.
[1] Siemer v Solicitor-General [2010] NZSC 54, [2010] 3 NZLR 767 at [26].
It is also unarguable that the absence of prosecutorial guidelines renders contempt proceedings unlawful. Inherent in this submission is the idea that contempt proceedings are akin to a criminal prosecution. They are not, even though some of the safeguards of criminal proceedings are incorporated into the process.
The sentence does not involve a matter of general or public importance. Assuming the courts have jurisdiction to make suppression orders, then we do not consider the sentence imposed is a miscarriage of justice, still less “a substantial miscarriage of justice”.

Solicitors:
N Dunning, Wellington for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against a decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed his appeal against a suppression order made by the High Court. The suppression order was made in relation to a criminal trial and was intended to protect the fairness of the trial by preventing the publication of certain information. Siemer argued that the suppression order was unlawful and that the contempt proceedings against him for breaching the order were also unlawful. The court was required to decide whether New Zealand courts have the inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases, and whether the absence of prosecutorial guidelines renders contempt proceedings unlawful. The court declined to grant leave to appeal on the remaining issues advanced by Siemer, considering them to be unarguable. The court held that if there is power for a court of criminal jurisdiction to suppress judgments, then any such order must be obeyed. Breaching an order and then arguing whether it should have been in the terms in which it was propounded is not the correct procedure. The court also held that the absence of prosecutorial guidelines does not render contempt proceedings unlawful, as they are not akin to a criminal prosecution. The sentence imposed was not considered to be a miscarriage of justice.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether New Zealand courts have the inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases. The court held that if there is such power, then any suppression order made by a court of criminal jurisdiction must be obeyed. The correct procedure for challenging a suppression order is to have it reviewed, not to breach it and then argue whether it should have been in the terms in which it was propounded. The court also held that the absence of prosecutorial guidelines does not render contempt proceedings unlawful, as they are not akin to a criminal prosecution. The sentence imposed was not considered to be a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established