KEY POINTS:
The Court of Appeal has lifted a ban on a book about a woman's allegations that she was sexually abused by a health professional.
The book focuses on allegations by "W" against her therapist, "A", who she says sexually abused her during therapy. He was later found not
guilty of the charges at a criminal trial.
The book, written and published by Anne Hunt of Foxton in May 2003, does not identify either party, instead calling them "Annette" and "Wayne", which are not their real names.
In November 2003 orders were made suppressing A's identity and the following month the book was recalled.
In the High Court in May last year, Justice John Wild found Hunt to be in contempt of court and in breach of confidence for publishing the book.
Justice Wild made an order for the seizure and destruction of any unsold copies and preventing Hunt from further publication of parts of the book found to be in contempt of court.
He also fined her $1000 and ordered her to pay $15,000 damages to A.
About 1000 copies of the book were printed and more than 300 had been sold when the book was recalled. About 650 copies were now in storage.
The Court of Appeal yesterday set aside all orders made by Justice Wild.
However, it said the ruling would lie in court for five days in case either party wished to make any application in the High Court in relation to the book.
It said if there were any issues about the continued suppression of the book's name these could be made to Justice Wild.
In allowing the appeal the court said Hunt was not in contempt of court or in breach of confidence.
It said there was no obligation for Hunt to apply to the court to use material from court hearings provided to her by W.
Hunt did not breach W's confidence as W expressly authorised her to have access to her documentation and to publish.
W gave the information to Hunt, subject to its being approved for publication by W's lawyer, David Collins, QC.
Hunt gave the manuscript to Dr Collins and met him but there is some disagreement about the meeting.
Hunt said she made all the deletions noted on the manuscript by Dr Collins, but he said he had only marked portions for future discussion with Hunt.
He understood that after some rewriting his approval would be sought before any book was published.
Hunt said she made all the changes indicated by Dr Collins so believed the content was safe legally.
The court said Hunt may not have acted wisely but acted in good faith, and the lawsuit was an attempt by A to "close down" any public discussion of the matters in the book.
- NZPA