Jock Anderson

British media lawyers battling for the right to search juicy court files could use New Zealand’s transparent approach to force their argument.

Leading media lawyer Willy Akel says he would not be at all surprised if UK briefs relied on ground-breaking New Zealand cases to strengthen their cause.

Mr Akel, a senior partner in Simpson Grierson and primary legal adviser to Television New Zealand, says the court records being sought in Britain are already largely available in New Zealand.

The world’s major media organizations are fighting the Law Society of England and Wales for the right to access statements of claim and defence in court hearings.

As CaseLoad exclusively reported in this site earlier the Law Society won a last minute ex parte injunction on September 29 blocking Her Majesty’s Court Services introducing new disclosure rules for court documents from October 2.

The injunction, which continues in force until a full judicial review can be argued on November 2, stopped new rules taking effect that would have made documents such as pleadings and defence of a claim available to third parties, including the media.

One of the Law Society’s concerns is that the Courts Service will interpret the new disclosure ruling to mean that court documents can be made public retrospectively, meaning media organizations would be able to see details of claims involving celebrities, for example, which had previously been under wraps.

Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said the interim injunction protected the privacy and confidentiality of many people in old disputes including employment, blackmail and discrimination cases.

In an exclusive interview with CaseLoad Mr Akel said that in New Zealand searches of court records were covered by Rule 66 of the High Court Rules, and with the exception of defamation actions and family protection proceedings just about everything was searchable on application to the court.

Mr Akel said freedom of expression, freedom of information, privacy, and the administration of justice were included among the factors weighed up by New Zealand courts when considering disclosure.

Mr Akel, who said he was regularly contacted by British media lawyers intent on keeping up with developments here, said the New Zealand court system was public “and getting more so” and people involved – particularly in civil cases – had to accept that “everything will be opened up.”

“The media can apply for statements of claim, defence and affidavits if necessary,” Mr Akel said.

He said the Court of Appeal had ruled there should be a “balancing act” in determining what could be made public and favoured disclosure unless there was a very good reason not to disclose.

“Our courts take the view that they are public, they take a more transparent approach to court records and searches and therefore favour disclosure,” Mr Akel said.

He said a recent Law Commission report on access to court records recommended a Court Information Act, which made a presumption of accountability and disclosure.

In a September decision the Supreme Court, after all other courts had rejected their so-called privacy whimperings, refused to even consider an appeal by French agents Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, who tried to prevent Television New Zealand broadcasting their in-court guilty  pleas to manslaughter in the 1985 Rainbow Warrior bombing outrage.

Feedback on this story to jockanderson@ihug.co.nz