« Media gagged on Health Board report | Main | Your news leader »
Illegal exclusion of media?
By Steven | February 29, 2008
Yesterday, Justice Panckhurst closed the court to the media in a preliminary hearing on the Bain case. He is reported as saying that discussions were sensitive and could have implications for a fair trial. But these are not grounds for excluding the media. Check out section 138 of the Criminal Justice Act:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of any other enactment, every sitting of any court dealing with any proceedings in respect of an offence shall be open to the public.
(2) Where a court is of the opinion that the interests of justice, or of public morality, or of the reputation of any victim of any alleged sexual offence or offence of extortion, or of the security or defence of New Zealand so require, it may make any one or more of the following orders:
(a) An order forbidding publication of any report or account of the whole or any part of —
(i) The evidence adduced; or
(ii) The submissions made:
(b) An order forbidding the publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses:
(c) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, an order excluding all or any persons other than the informant, any member of the Police, the defendant, any counsel engaged in the proceedings, and any officer of the court from the whole or any part of the proceedings.
(3) The power conferred by paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section shall not, except where the interests of security or defence so require, be exercised so as to exclude any accredited news media reporter.
(4) An order made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section—
(a) May be made for a limited period or permanently; and
(b) If it is made for a limited period, may be renewed for a further period or periods by the court; and
(c) If it is made permanently, may be reviewed by the court at any time.
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) of this section are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
Upshot: even if the court is closed, the media is allowed to stay, unless national defence or security is at stake. Here, it’s not. The proper course is to make suppression orders, not exclude the media. Note that under subsection (5) any inherent power the court might have in the background is extinguished. Still, I understand that some judges do go into chambers and exclude the media for preliminary hearings in criminal cases. As far as I know, the question of whether judges retain some residual power to do this, perhaps on the grounds that a chambers hearing is not a “sitting” of court, has not been tested. I’m inclined to think that such a power would be inconsistent with section 138, which seems very widely drafted.
Topics: Suppression orders | 52 Comments »
52 Responses to “Illegal exclusion of media?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I assume there’s actually a process for news media reporters to become accredited? Were these particular reporters so-accredited?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
As far as I know, the concept of “accredited journalist” has never been properly clarified (see also Burrows and Cheer, Media Law in NZ, 330, who don’t think so either). In particular, it’s not clear whether freelance journalists are included. Serious bloggers are probably in the same camp. A lot is left to the discretion of the courts.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
What determines whether a pre-trial hearing is heard in court or in a judge’s chambers? (Have I been reading too many American legal thrillers?). Is there anything to prevent the judge closing a hearing in open court and then reconvening in chambers?
February 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I’ve attended many an in-chambers hearing in my time, at several of them standing up in the court to insist to the judge my right to be there, even if the public is excluded. The judges have always agreed.
What I suspect may have happened in Christchurch is that Panckhurst J may be mindful that the media have taken it upon themselves to be the cheerleaders in the Bain case, to such an extraordinary degree that matters discussed in chambers may not stay there.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am
As the author of the banned book Broken Silence, I had to contend with ten interlocutory hearings in closed Chambers. I am surprised that the respondent to my appeal, quoted in a memorandum to the Court of Appeal, a statement I’d made in a submission to the High Court: “It is my belief that it is not the role of a Judge to persist with questions in order to pressure the defendant into making a statement which the defendant knows to be untrue.”
Furthermore, in closed Chambers the High Court Judge cited the hearsay rule to deter me from introducing crucial evidence by claiming I could not do so unless I called Dr David Collins QC as a witness. The Court of Appeal stated that: “We think the Judge was inadvertently drawn into error on the ruling he gave in this instance.”
In other words, when pre-trial hearings are held in closed Chambers, there are risks that the principles of natural justice will not be upheld or that evidence is withheld due to directions given in closed Chambers.
In terms of the Bain case, I believe it is crucial that all pre-trial hearings be heard in open sittings to ensure all proceedings relating to this contentious litigation is fair.
After all, David Bain is entitled to ensure the Judges do not try to defend the previous conviction.
May 20th, 2020 at 7:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
May 25th, 2020 at 4:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 7:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
June 17th, 2020 at 5:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 84612 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
July 17th, 2020 at 12:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 31581 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
August 2nd, 2020 at 3:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
August 4th, 2020 at 1:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
August 5th, 2020 at 5:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
August 20th, 2020 at 1:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 20235 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 8:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 11:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 7:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 4th, 2020 at 11:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 1:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 25th, 2020 at 4:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 5:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
October 3rd, 2020 at 5:55 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 31254 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
October 19th, 2020 at 8:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
October 20th, 2020 at 1:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 30290 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
October 25th, 2020 at 3:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 16885 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
November 27th, 2020 at 3:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
November 27th, 2020 at 11:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
December 29th, 2020 at 9:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
December 31st, 2020 at 6:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
January 4th, 2021 at 6:03 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 2:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 4:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 313 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
January 14th, 2021 at 9:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
January 16th, 2021 at 6:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
January 19th, 2021 at 4:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
January 24th, 2021 at 4:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
February 4th, 2021 at 7:57 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
March 30th, 2021 at 5:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
April 1st, 2021 at 4:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 20641 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
April 7th, 2021 at 5:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
April 12th, 2021 at 11:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
April 29th, 2021 at 12:00 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
May 4th, 2021 at 4:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 5931 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
May 4th, 2021 at 11:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
May 29th, 2021 at 8:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
June 21st, 2021 at 2:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 2:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 7:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
July 4th, 2021 at 1:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
July 30th, 2021 at 6:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 89071 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
August 31st, 2021 at 11:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]
September 29th, 2021 at 6:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 80749 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=72 […]