Muckhacking
July 10, 2009
For anyone who’s missed it: a fascinating expose of journalistic practices at News of the World. They hire private investigators to illegally hack public figures’ mobile phones; try to pass it off as a one-off lapse by a rogue journalist if caught out; and if sued pay out enormous sums as hush money in confidential settlements.
Topics: Breach of confidence, Media ethics, Privacy tort | Comments Off on Muckhacking
Laws unto himself
July 7, 2009
Michael Laws has been potted by the Broadcasting Standards Authority again, this time for a tirade against two fire service spokespeople, who had warned the public about the dangers of leaving chips unattended in a frying pan and not having working smoke alarms. This was after a fatal fire, killing four children, had been caused by… chips left unattended in a frying pan with no working smoke alarm nearby.
Just doing their job? Looking to save lives by averting similar tragedies? Not according to Michael Laws, who railed against them for three hours on his talkshow:
They were exploiting the tragedy? How were your ratings that day, Michael?
PS. A cogent response by Laws:
The BSA should be disbanded. There is no need for it. My job’s not to offer balance, it’s to offer strong opinion. I never, ever go too far. I’m not a namby-pamby left-wing liberal commie journalist.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority | Comments Off on Laws unto himself
Defamation stoush looming in London
July 7, 2009
Looks like a humdinger.
Topics: Defamation | Comments Off on Defamation stoush looming in London
Well, sometimes there’s eye-gouging too
July 7, 2009
From Radio NZ this morning:
The National Rugby League has plunged to an embarrassing low with the Sydney Roosters fined $50,000 and their Queensland State of Origin star Nate Miles suspended for six games for defecating in the corridor of a central coast hotel naked and in a drunken stupor. That’s sport.
Topics: General | Comments Off on Well, sometimes there’s eye-gouging too
New BSA member
June 29, 2009
Mary Anne Shanahan has been appointed to replace Diane Musgrave at the BSA. She is a lawyer, but is not being appointed chair (that’s still Jo Morris): she has been appointed to the “community rep” position. (One of the four members is appointed after consultation with broadcasters, and one after consultation with “public interest groups in relation to broadcasting”, and that’s now Shanahan).
The terms of the other members are coming to a close soon, too. I hope the new members will be able to build on what’s been a pretty solid and consistent record from the current crew.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority | Comments Off on New BSA member
Media law guide
June 28, 2009
For the edification of the masses, I’ve added a range of headings over on the left giving basic information on some of the most important areas of New Zealand media law. If you want more detail (particularly from a journalist’s point of view) you might try my book Media Minefield. If you want even more detail (particularly from a lawyer’s point of view) I recommend Burrows and Cheer, Media Law in New Zealand (5ed Oxford 2005).
Topics: General | Comments Off on Media law guide
How I think the Bill of Rights is supposed to work
June 28, 2009
I’ve mentioned an article I wrote with Claudia Geiringer about the Bill of Rights Act for Law, Liberty and Legislation – Essays in Honour of John Burrows QC. It’s called “Moving from Self-Justication to Demonstrable Justification – the Bill of Rights and the Broadcasting Standards Authority”. It has already been cited favourably in a couple of High Court decisions. I’ve posted a copy here.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority, NZ Bill of Rights Act | Comments Off on How I think the Bill of Rights is supposed to work
Law Commission goes all social networky
June 22, 2009
And you thought they were geeks. Bzzzzt. The Law Commission has launched an interactive website called “TalkLaw” for us to have our say on law reform issues. (I did a couple of holiday stints at the Law Commission in the early 90s, and they were throwing around a similar idea then – but it was a newsletter rather than a website. I wanted it to be called “ReForum”, but nobody else liked the idea. It’s still available, Commissioners!)
The site optimistically lists “What is the Law Commission?” as a Frequently Asked Question. They wish.
The essence of the site is its forums on legal issues. It’s an easy way to make submissions on the projects the Commission is working on. At the moment, they’re looking for feedback on privacy issues. They’ve sensibly carved up some of the key questions to make it easier to provide a response, and equally sensibly cast some in the form of fact scenarios, so you don’t have to provide waffly answers to abstract questions. For instance:
Scenario: Ari and Beth* were in a relationship, and Ari took intimate photographs of Beth with her consent. After the relationship breaks up, Ari posts these photos on the internet without Beth’s consent.
It may be possible for Beth to go to court and sue Ari for damages, or seek an injunction, in situations like this. However, there are currently no criminal provisions that would prohibit Ari’s publishing the photos simply because of their private nature and the effect of publication on Beth.
Should it be a criminal offence to publish deeply private information about someone without their consent?
Are there any types of invasions of privacy that are so serious they should be criminal offences?
Contribute your answer here.
Topics: General, Privacy Act, Privacy tort | Comments Off on Law Commission goes all social networky
Bain – and antidote?
June 12, 2009
Calling evidence experts… Can anyone tell me why the Courts couldn’t have let the jury see half of the “paper run alibi” evidence? Why couldn’t jurors be told that David Bain was speculating about committing a crime, but it wasn’t murder, and it didn’t involve his family… and then let them hear and assess in full the evidence about how he said he would have jiggered his paper run to cover it up? (And of course, any evidence for Bain saying that such conversation(s) never took place).
Doesn’t that take out much of the prejucial effect of this evidence (which is reportedly why it was ruled inadmissible) but preserve its probative value (which strikes me as fairly strong)?
I confess I haven’t been able to find an unredacted version of the Court of Appeal’s decision on this point. Did they really say that the paper run alibi didn’t form an important part of the Crown’s case?
Topics: General | Comments Off on Bain – and antidote?
TV3 broadcasts “I shot the prick” tape extract
June 12, 2009
Here.
Was it legal? As I understand it, there’s still an application before the High Court for access to the deleted part of the tape from the Court file. It might be happening right now. But I’m not aware of any decision granting access yet.
TV3 told us that “the Supreme Court said the material could be made public”. I think that’s wrong. The Supreme Court said the reasons for its decision – including reference to the contents of the tape – could be made public. Not the tape itself.
It looks like TV3 jumped the gun. Was the broadcast unlawful?
I don’t think so. I’m guessing TV3 had the tape from the 1994 trial, where it was played in full. (Or perhaps they got it from the police – maybe from an Official Information Act request). They didn’t need to get access to the court file. As far as I know, the tape itself, or its contents, were not suppressed. The file had not been sealed. TV3 wasn’t doing an end run around a court order. The alleged content of the tape was now public. I think TV3 was entitled to broadcast it.
In A v Hunt, the Court of Appeal made it clear that it’s not a contempt (by itself) to use information you hold, just because it also happens to be on a court file.
There’s just one nagging question mark. There is a suggestion in the Rogers case by Justice McGrath that in some circumstances it may be an abuse of court process for a party to undermine the court’s ability to protect its processes (including its record) and thereby prejudice the administration of justice. (There, the police had – improperly, said McGrath J – leaked to TVNZ a copy of a video confession that was later ruled inadmissible).
If TV3 got the tape from the 1994 trial, it’s hard to see that those comments apply to TV3’s actions here. If it got it from one of the parties, it’s still hard to see that there’s a risk to the administration of justice. Besides, it’s not clear that McGrath J is saying any more than the courts may have a jurisdiction to restrain such a publication after they had asserted control over it – as opposed to punishing the recipient of the evidence for publishing it where there had been no such assertion of control or even an application triggering this jurisdiction, and no unlawful release of the information to the media. Nor does the point seem to have been fully argued. And none of the other judges adopted his analysis. Finally, Bain isn’t a case where the evidence has been obtained in breach of someone’s rights, as Rogers was.
So I think TV3’s in the clear. Good on them for broadcasting it.
Topics: Court records, Name suppression, NZ Bill of Rights Act | Comments Off on TV3 broadcasts “I shot the prick” tape extract
« Previous Entries Next Entries »