Suppression orders« Previous Entries
A hard call
Was the coroner right to suppress the names of the health care workers involved in the tragic death of Zachary Gravatt of menigicoccal disease in 2009? After all, he found the hospital was swamped with swine flu victims and Zachary’s symptoms were very similar. He was given considerable care and attention, and the […]
The Herald’s lawyer, Alan Ringwood, argues that we don’t need any statutory press regulation in NZ. Don’t listen to Levenson, he says. We don’t need to go there. (Full article here).
I guess it’s not a news flash that the Herald’s lawyer would oppose statutory restrictions on the Herald. But I’m interested in his argument. It’s […]
Do judges have power to suppress the contents of whole judgments in criminal cases?
If not, then perhaps Vince Siemer has a defence to the contempt ruling against him for posting a suppressed judgment in the Urewera case.
The High Court and Court of Appeal said “yes” (discussions here and here). The Supreme Court has agreed to […]
The Crown tells us that as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Urewera case,
there is no longer sufficient evidence to justify the continuation of the proceedings against a number of those charged solely under the Arms Act…
That is, the Crown has revealed that the Supreme Court has ruled some evidence inadmissible. […]
Tom Frewen [and Graeme Edgeler] noted that last year the Privileges Committee looked at the issue of the scope of the media’s privilege to report on proceedings in the House, and also concluded that it was much less than the media tend to think it is:
The media play an important role in providing the public with information about thebusiness of […]
A fascinating insight into super-injunctions
English football captain John Terry’s failed attempt to obtain an injunction gagging revelation of his affair with his team-mate’s ex contains a lot of fascinating information about so-called super-injunctions. A super-injunction is a gag that not only prevents particular information from being published, it also stops anyone even mentioning the injunction. […]
I see that Whale Oil has been publishing a series of posts under the heading “Interesting names” that contain nothing but a person’s name. I might take a wild stab in the dark and guess that those were names that had been suppressed. Is he breaking the law?
It’s an offence to publish a name (or […]
The Solicitor-General has decided not to pursue Mr Oil for contempt of court “at this stage”, though he says he supports the prosecutions for name suppression. He adds that contempt proceedings “remain an option” if Mr Oil’s offending continues or escalates, but would probably be brought after the suppression breaches trial.
Sigh. I’ve been avoiding weighing in on Whale Oil’s campaign to reform NZ’s suppression laws, or failing that, render them useless. (In my absence, Andrew Geddis has done a good job). But it’s an issue that won’t die. It doesn’t help that the media seem endlessly fascinated by it, and by him.
I won’t attempt a […]
Which is worse: our name suppression laws, or the media’s coverage of them?
Today, the Sunday Star-Times leads with a story headlined “Identity of high profile drug accused kept secret”.
The story is about a familiar one: public figure gets name suppression; cue outrage.
Never mind that this particular defendant’s name was not suppressed between her arrest in […]