Steven Price

My book

Media Minefield

Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act

Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)

« | Main | »

Karla Cardno’s dad suppression case: not much of an issue

By Steven | June 9, 2009

You might have caught me on TV3 last night explaining that it was worth a shot for Karla Cardno’s dad and his new wife to seek name suppression for their sex charges on the grounds that they’re going to get extra publicity given the notoriety of those past (but unconnected) events. If you’re het up that I seemed to be supporting that application, bear in mind that, in the bits of the interview TV3 didn’t broadcast, I said:

— I wasn’t at all surprised that the application failed since the courts have said that the risk of publicity goes with being a defendant, and even the likelihood of particular media attention won’t usually be sufficient to justify name suppression;

— The defendants had given evidence of adverse health effects, which is a stronger ground, but even so, the Court of Appeal said it wasn’t sufficient to overcome the presumption of open justice;

— The Court pointed out that there was no suggestion that the fairness of their trial would be prejudiced;

— The test is whether the harm caused by publicity would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the alleged offences, and these were serious charges that the public had a strong interest in;

— The higher courts generally take a fairly hard line on suppression issues;

— Overall, this struck me as a fairly routine case and an unremarkable decision by the Court of Appeal. Sure, the notoriety argument was worth a shot, but it was always unlikely to succeed.

Topics: Media ethics, Name suppression | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Karla Cardno’s dad suppression case: not much of an issue”

  1. Graeme Edgeler Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    I saw the TVNZ report, rather than TV3’s. I thought it was hilarious:

    … but in these documents obtained by One News the Court of Appeal has today ruled…

    That would be the decision?

  2. Steven Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Scoop! Your news leader.


You must be logged in to post a comment.