Invasion of Privacy — Hosking and Beyond
John Burrows QC |
New Zealand’s new tort of invasion of privacy will need to be kept in tight confinement if it is not to threaten freedom of expression. The open-ended criteria laid down in Hosking create the risk that the tort may be capable of extending beyond what most of us regard as the paradigm privacy cases. The early post-Hosking cases demonstrate the risk. Parallel developments in the United Kingdom should be treated with caution in New Zealand.
|
The Interface Between Media and the Law
Simon Mount |
The interface between the media and the legal system is an issue of increasing importance in New Zealand. This paper begins by noting some of the major changes in the media and legal landscapes over the last 25 years, and assesses the current state of the law of contempt, suppression, and access to court records against that background. The principal conclusions of the paper are that specific guidance should be developed to govern media comment by counsel in New Zealand, that there may be some developing tolerance in the courts to pre-trial publicity, and that the full influence of the Bill of Rights guarantee to freedom of expression has yet to be felt in this area. |
Journalists Compelled to be Witnesses — Time for a Re-Evaluation
BD Gray QC |
Numerous courts and tribunals have the power to compel production of documents and to issue subpoenae. Many of them are exercising these powers in respect of journalists, and are doing so reasonably regularly. This paper considers whether courts are currently providing adequate protection for journalists in respect of sources and information in documents, and whether, before a journalist is compelled to provide information, courts should require more than is presently the case. It will be argued that the approach currently taken by New Zealand courts and tribunals is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and any tension between free speech and fair trial rights under that Act must be resolved in a manner that accords equal priority to both rights. The paper also considers whether new legislation, the Criminal Procedure Bill, might assist in this area. |
Defamation in New Zealand and Its Effects on the Media — Self-Censorship or Occupational Hazard?
Ursula Cheer |
This article presents further results of a comprehensive 2001 study seeking to determine whether New Zealand’s defamation laws have a chilling effect on the media, to the extent that stories with a high element of public interest are suppressed or edited, with detrimental effects on freedom of expression. It presents a picture of the character of the media respondents as media business enterprises, highlights the most significant data as to threats and actual court claims, details the experience of threats and claims of defamation lawyers, and describes and analyses the views of the media and defamation lawyers on the law. The conclusion is that, generally, important stories do see the light of day. Furthermore, the benign levels of threats and claims against the media, the apparent proportionality and reasonableness of outcomes, and the comparative lack of claims without any substance suggest that, on the whole, New Zealand does have a media that behaves responsibly. Ultimately, a robust, responsible media is in a much better position to protect and preserve freedom of expression than one that faces a threat of increased regulation because of its perceived excesses.
|
More Effective Management of Defamation Cases
Stephen Mills |
Defamation litigation is frequently complex, expensive, and protracted. It also involves serious financial and reputational risks for both plaintiffs and defendants, and often uncertain outcomes that chill freedom of expression. Reforms in New Zealand and elsewhere that have been aimed at an early focus on apology and correction have had only mixed success, in part because of the procedural complexity of defamation proceedings. This article argues that despite the proven difficulties of reform, there are available procedures under the Defamation Act 1992 and the High Court Rules that can assist toward the more effective management of defamation cases. This is primarily through an early determination of defamatory meaning, a reinvigorated use of ss 24, 26, 27, and 35 of the Defamation Act, and the use of r 418 of the High Court Rules to decide, pre?trial, whether a publication has been on an occasion of qualified privilege. |
Prior Restraint of the Press
Jesse Wilson |
This paper considers the principles governing prior restraint of the press in the light of comparative jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as the statutory overlay of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The author argues that, in accordance with these principles, the liberty of the press should prevail in the absence of exceptional, clear, and compelling reasons for injunctive relief. |
Reviews |
Competition Law: Mark Berry |
|
2006 PART IV
