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 | »

The Law Commission reports on Contempt of Court

By Steven | August 23, 2017

A press conference ignored

A press conference on the Todd Barclay affair rather gazumped the launch of the Law Commission’s report on contempt of court in June. No-one from the media turned up. That’s a shame, because the Commission is recommending some significant changes.

Some notable recommendations

In 2014, I commented on the Commission’s discussion paper, where the Commission mooted most of the reforms it now formally recommends. They include:

The law of contempt is a grab-bag of powers, some of them ill-defined, that the courts can use to ensure that litigants’ cases aren’t compromised by activities inside or outside the courtroom – the publication of suppressed or prejudicial material, the intimidation of witnesses or jurors, violation of court orders, disruption in the courtroom, unfounded attacks on the integrity of judges.

As the Commission notes, the law of contempt isn’t easy to find, or to understand. It’s outdated. It’s seldom enforced. The Commission is surely right that it’s ripe for reform.

In general, the Commission’s recommendations make sense to me. In particular:

Again, in general, the research seems thorough and the discussion thoughtful.

The sub judice reform

That’s not to say I agree with it all. As I’ve discussed, it doesn’t make much sense to me to claim that statutory implementation of the sub judice rule suddenly makes it “clear”. It really doesn’t. It’s still about as well-defined as a cloud of mosquitoes. Yes, it’s good to know that publishing previous convictions or related charges with a trial looming is a contempt, but that was already pretty clear. True, it would be nice to be sure that the contempt rules don’t apply until someone is arrested. And it will be helpful to give the court power to rule early on about some of the other things that can’t be published.

But the new statutory test contains all the vagueness of the current common law one, revolving around “a real risk that the publication could prejudice the arrested person’s right to a fair trial”. In fact, it may create more uncertainty, because the courts would have to figure out whether this was intended to represent a change.

Still, the Commission has set out a list of statutory factors for determining what counts as a real risk, including a set of things – such as publications that dwell on defendant’s bad character, poor credibility or gang associations – that may be treated as creating a real risk, and that may be about as much as we can hope for. I note, though, that this list of factors seems to be drawn from the common law, and seems untouched by the burgeoning social science evidence on what sorts of things in fact tend to prejudice jurors. That social science research – especially by world authorities Neil Vidmar and (in NZ) Warren Young – is not even mentioned in this report, which I find baffling.

A public interest defence

Most interesting is a proposed new public interest defence. I don’t recall this being mooted in the discussion paper. It applies where “the publication was in good faith made as a contribution to or part of a discussion of public affairs or matters of general public interest”. I’m a fan of public interest defences, but the courts have generally drawn a very strong line here. As Thomas J put it in R v Burns:

[O]nce … it has been determined that there is a significant risk that the accused will not receive a fair trial, the issue ceases to be one of balancing. The principles of freedom of expression and open justice must then be departed from, not balanced against.  There is no room in a civilised society to conclude that, ‘on the balance’, an accused should be compelled to face a fair trial.

Is the Law Commission saying that a good faith discussion in the public interest will not be in contempt even if it creates a real risk of prejudice to someone’s trial? It seems to be.

What will the government do?

In what reads to me like a pretty lukewarm response, the government is only promising to “carefully consider” the recommendations and respond in due course. Here’s Justice Minister Amy Adams:

We need to consider how these recommendations would work in practice so that any changes we make are effective and fair.

Silly old Law Commission for not bothering to think about how its recommendations would work in practice and whether they are effective or fair! On my reading,  considerations of practicality, effectiveness and fairness are threaded into the Commission’s discussion throughout. Has the Minister read it? Or is she signalling some disagreement? Who knows! But I’m not holding my breath for a new contempt bill in the near future.

I’ll blog on the reform of scandalising the judiciary shortly.

Topics: Contempt of Court | 12 Comments »

12 Responses to “The Law Commission reports on Contempt of Court”

  1. orospu Says:
    October 2nd, 2017 at 9:34 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here|Find More|Read More Informations here|Here you will find 439 additional Informations|Infos to that Topic: […]

  2. Says:
    October 4th, 2017 at 6:11 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on|Find More|Read More Informations here|There you can find 26302 additional Informations|Infos to that Topic: […]

  3. adme studies Says:
    October 7th, 2017 at 5:04 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here|Find More|Find More Infos here|There you will find 81617 additional Infos|Informations on that Topic: […]

  4. must watch Says:
    November 25th, 2017 at 11:41 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here|Read More|Read More Informations here|There you can find 96414 additional Informations|Infos on that Topic: […]

  5. Aws Alkhazraji Says:
    December 12th, 2017 at 10:04 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on|Find More|Find More Infos here|There you will find 38440 additional Infos|Informations to that Topic: […]

  6. arab colarts Says:
    December 18th, 2017 at 10:48 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here|Read More|Read More Informations here|Here you can find 24593 more Informations|Infos to that Topic: […]

  7. wedding planners in hyderabad Says:
    January 5th, 2018 at 10:24 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here|Read More|Find More Infos here|There you can find 28432 additional Infos|Infos to that Topic: […]

  8. CRO with Chemistry capabilities Says:
    January 12th, 2018 at 6:50 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on|Read More|Find More Informations here|There you will find 36290 more Informations|Informations to that Topic: […]

  9. empresas de assistência informática Says:
    January 30th, 2018 at 10:38 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on|Read More|Read More Informations here|Here you will find 22628 additional Informations|Informations to that Topic: […]

  10. appliance repair Richmond Hill Says:
    February 2nd, 2018 at 5:03 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on|Find More|Find More Infos here|There you will find 14929 more Infos|Informations to that Topic: […]

  11. easy forex Says:
    February 12th, 2018 at 2:04 am

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here|Read More|Find More Infos here|Here you will find 6566 more Infos|Infos to that Topic: […]

  12. women church suits Says:
    February 17th, 2018 at 8:09 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on|Find More|Read More Infos here|Here you will find 69241 more Infos|Informations on that Topic: […]