« 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 | 53 Comments »
53 Responses to “TV3 broadcasts “I shot the prick” tape extract”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
TVNZ’s lawyers presumably took a different view, which is why TV One did not broadcast the recording yesterday. They did this morning, though.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I didn’t know that. That’s odd. Seems like they didn’t take a different view, then, or at least changed their minds, since there’s still be no decision on the access application. Perhaps they decided it was safer once TV3 had done it. Perhaps they had only just got hold of a copy.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
And just what did it add to the public understanding of the trial and the outcome, against the background of those headlines ‘I shot the prick’?
June 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Ursula,
Probably added nothing to the public understanding of the Bain trial and its outcome, but it sure helped with understanding why the Supreme Court decided it should be suppressed. After hearing it, I can’t see how anyone could think it ought to have gone in as evidence (I include Panckhurst J and the Court of Appeal in this) … thus the broadcast made me much more comfortable that the Court got it right.
And no – I don’t think the word of the experts involved was sufficient … hearing the actual audio added a lot more.
June 13th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Ursula,
I think it helped a lot in understanding that the Crown was desperate to get a conviction. Why did the Crown even bother trying to admit this evidence? Its own experts said that they could not decipher exactly what (if anything) was said. So why did the Crown pursue the matter?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Andrew,
I absolutely think the tape should have been released and in fact predicted it would be (no hard task). The thing is, it is abstract rhetoric about adding to the public understanding of the Bain trial which is used to argue for release of court exhibits (indeed, Steven did exactly this). I guess I was just being rueful that the circumstances of the release only assisted ‘experts’ like you and me to better understand technical questions around the suppression of evidence. Unless we get access to the media to discuss this ( a pretty hit and miss affair, I am sure you will agree), then how much we are able to then assist the public to understand it all is pretty limited.
Cheers
May 18th, 2020 at 8:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
July 20th, 2020 at 7:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
July 22nd, 2020 at 11:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 7:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
August 2nd, 2020 at 2:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
August 4th, 2020 at 8:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 89131 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
August 23rd, 2020 at 6:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 4:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
September 7th, 2020 at 11:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
September 8th, 2020 at 12:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
September 19th, 2020 at 9:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 93845 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
September 22nd, 2020 at 5:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 95462 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
October 2nd, 2020 at 1:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 12562 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
October 6th, 2020 at 12:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
October 11th, 2020 at 11:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 3854 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
October 17th, 2020 at 9:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
October 19th, 2020 at 3:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
October 29th, 2020 at 7:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
November 8th, 2020 at 6:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 3:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
November 16th, 2020 at 10:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 3:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 4:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 74315 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
November 26th, 2020 at 7:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
December 7th, 2020 at 2:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 18616 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
December 21st, 2020 at 4:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 2:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
January 4th, 2021 at 2:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 3:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
January 16th, 2021 at 6:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
January 22nd, 2021 at 6:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
January 23rd, 2021 at 1:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
February 12th, 2021 at 2:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
April 8th, 2021 at 8:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
May 22nd, 2021 at 2:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
May 25th, 2021 at 7:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 12:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 4:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
July 2nd, 2021 at 3:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 2:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
July 7th, 2021 at 12:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
July 24th, 2021 at 8:21 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
August 15th, 2021 at 11:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 87167 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
October 9th, 2021 at 12:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
December 4th, 2021 at 1:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
December 11th, 2021 at 6:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]
December 18th, 2021 at 12:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=267 […]