« Free advice for the Greens: | Main | Nice Job 2 »
Nice job 1
By Steven | October 2, 2008
Kudos to: Judge David Harvey for reversing course on the suppression order that applied only to the internet. As I’ve discussed, he had reasons for imposing the unusual order, though I thought they weren’t sufficient. When the media belatedly turned up to argue the toss, the judge accepted that:
absent an identifiable risk to a fair trial at this stage, together with the media’s ability to withdraw material at a later date if directed, it appears to me at this time in this case that s 14 freedom of expression [in the Bill of Rights] overrides the s 25 right to a fair trial.
Unfortunate point of confusion: the best reading seems of this to be that there was no evidence of any threat to a fair trial, so s 25 isn’t really being “overridden”.
Delightful irony: at the same time as the media were putting affidavit evidence in front of Judge Harvey insisting how easy it is for them to remove online material if need be, there were red faces at Fairfax when it was discovered during their contempt trial that one of the Crown lawyers had, by the simple expedient of a Google search, pulled up the material they said they’d taken down.
Extra bouquet: to Bruce Gray QC (and Bell Gully’s Alan Ringwood, and whoever they had beavering away at the research) who did a fine job for the media before Judge Harvey. Their submissions were rigorous and their Bill of Rights arguments, in particular, showed a degree of nuance and cogency I’ve rarely seen in media law cases.
Interesting aside: at Bruce Gray’s tentative suggestion, the judge accepted that the media may have additional rights that may not be available to the public. This line of thinking has important ramifications for access and source protection issues.
Topics: Internet issues, NZ Bill of Rights Act, Suppression orders | 15 Comments »
15 Responses to “Nice job 1”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 19th, 2020 at 5:04 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 20th, 2020 at 1:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 21st, 2020 at 7:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 22nd, 2020 at 1:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 23rd, 2020 at 12:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 25th, 2020 at 11:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 26th, 2020 at 9:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 26th, 2020 at 9:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 64025 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 29th, 2020 at 11:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 30th, 2020 at 4:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 31st, 2020 at 1:29 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
May 31st, 2020 at 2:26 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 12:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 6:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 7:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=164 […]