Vincent Ross Siemer v The Solicitor-General
[2012] NZSC 57
•19 July 2012
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 37/2012 [2012[ NZSC 57 |
| BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER |
| AND THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL |
| Court: Elias CJ, Tipping and Chambers JJ |
| Counsel: T Ellis for Appellant |
| 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
0