| 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. |
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 132/2016 [2016] NZSC 156 |
| BETWEEN | W |
| AND | THE QUEEN |
| Court: | Glazebrook, Arnold and Ellen France JJ |
Counsel: | |
| Judgment: | 30 November 2016 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Details suppressed until final disposition of trial.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Details
- AGLC
- Warren v R [2016] NZSC 156
- Case
- [2016] NZSC 156
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Warren, an Australian citizen, brought an action in the Supreme Court of New Zealand against the Crown, represented by the Queen, concerning allegations of serious criminal offences. The court was tasked with deciding on an application for an order prohibiting the publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings, including the result, in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available databases until the final disposition of the trial. The court was permitted to publish the judgment in law reports or law digests.
The legal issue before the court was whether the suppression of publication of the proceedings would be in the interests of justice. This involved a balancing exercise between the public's right to know and the need to protect the fairness of the trial. The court considered the potential prejudice that could result from premature publication and the necessity of maintaining a fair trial environment.
The court, comprising Glazebrook, Arnold, and Ellen France JJ, determined that the interests of justice required the suppression of publication of the proceedings until the final disposition of the trial. The judges recognised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the potential for significant prejudice to the accused if sensitive details of the proceedings were made public before the trial was concluded. Therefore, the court issued an order prohibiting such publication, allowing only for the judgment to be included in law reports or law digests.
The legal issue before the court was whether the suppression of publication of the proceedings would be in the interests of justice. This involved a balancing exercise between the public's right to know and the need to protect the fairness of the trial. The court considered the potential prejudice that could result from premature publication and the necessity of maintaining a fair trial environment.
The court, comprising Glazebrook, Arnold, and Ellen France JJ, determined that the interests of justice required the suppression of publication of the proceedings until the final disposition of the trial. The judges recognised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the potential for significant prejudice to the accused if sensitive details of the proceedings were made public before the trial was concluded. Therefore, the court issued an order prohibiting such publication, allowing only for the judgment to be included in law reports or law digests.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.