« Sensational newsbreak: Bain worships devil, shills Coke | Main | Bain – and antidote? »
TV3 broadcasts “I shot the prick” tape extract
By Steven | 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