Archive for December, 2009
The Canadian Supreme Court has followed most of the rest of the common law world in developing a privilege to publish information in the public interest, providing the publication was “responsible”. Both are elements for the defence to prove. It’s broadly similar to the UK defence in Reynolds - so it’s wider than the current versions […]
TVNZ’s complaints committee has found that Paul Henry breached the taste and decency standard with his comments on Susan Boyle on Breakfast last month. He giggled when reporting that she had been starved of oxygen at birth and said she was “retarded” and you could see it from her photograph. It’s worse when you see […]
It seems that a “comedian” has been granted name suppression in connection with charges that he has had unlawful sexual connection with a child under 12, his daughter.
This isn’t some namby-pamby judge covering up for a celebrity. This suppression kicks in automatically under the Criminal Justice Act, I think. Alleged sex crime victims are given name suppression under […]
It’s been allowed in the US and Australia, with an Australian judge saying:
I believe that the public has a legitimate right to be fully informed of proceedings, particularly proceedings such as (the iiNet case), which have attracted considerable public interest. Twittering can serve to inform the public in a more speedy and comprehensive manner than […]
Tiger Woods has obtained an injunction against the publication of some private details in the UK. Media lawyer Mark Stephens suggests that it concerns information that’s being freely reported in the US.
If that’s so, the injunction seems futile, and therefore legally unjustifiable.
It also seems strategically dopey. It can only serve to achieve something I had thought impossible: to increase […]
The “high profile businesswoman” who featured in last week’s SST front-page lead because she received interim name suppression on charges of supplying drugs to her dying ex-husband, has now been named. From this report, it seems that her lawyers did not even see fit to contest it further, and the suppression just lapsed.
She’s Colleen Sylvia […]
Speaking of the Law Commission, they’re seeking your views on whether we should be changing our official information laws. Online survey here. You’ll have to be in quickly though: they want the feedback by January [Update: new deadline is 15 February].
At the R v the Internet conference last week Attorney-General Chris Finlayson said there’s a government announcement on the law of contempt looming. A reference to the Law Commission perhaps?