Court gagging orders confuse public

Another day, another suppression order. Even at a rough count, the courts had a good week - suppressing information or names in at least seven cases.

It comes just weeks after the suppression of information was highlighted when orders were put in place for three men acquitted of the rape of Louise Nicholas.

This week, two district court judges dealing with the suitcase murder case gave out completely different suppression orders - which legal experts said illustrated the inconsistencies in the system.

Three people have been charged in relation to the kidnapping and murder of Chinese student Wan Biao.

The first two accused appeared before Judge Graham Hubble on Wednesday. A 21-year-old was charged with Mr Biao's kidnapping and murder, another 21-year-old was charged with being an accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence.

Judge Hubble granted the two men interim name suppression for nearly two months, to be reviewed on June 28.

Crown Solicitor Simon Moore said it was to preserve the evidential integrity of the case.

A third accused, also 21, then appeared before Judge Russell Callender on Thursday.

Lawyers asked that he also receive name suppression until June 28, but Judge Callender refused, granting interim suppression only until next Thursday.

Judge Callender said the seriousness of the charges and the public interest and the principles of open justice meant he could not grant it for any longer.

He was told the co-accused had been granted suppression for two months. Judge Callender replied that he was dealing only with the case before him.

Auckland University senior law lecturer Scott Optican said the differing decisions did not surprise him. New Zealand judges did not have to give extensive reasons for granting suppression and, he believed, judges did not have enough guidance through statute or case law.

The problem, he said, was section 140 of the Criminal Justice Act, which made the granting of suppression discretionary. "There's no guidance."

Mr Optican said it was also a problem that judges did not give lengthy reasons for granting suppression, so it became a mystery to the public.

Law Commissioner Dr Warren Young said the situation was inevitable, given the principles surrounding suppression.

"It does undermine public confidence when different people get dealt with in different ways for no apparent reason," Dr Young said.

The Criminal Justice Act is not specific about grounds for suppression and, while the Appeal Court has said the presumption must be for openness, the granting of name suppression is left to the discretion of judges.

The Law Commission took a proposal to the Government recently trying to limit the inconsistencies in granting suppression.

It recommended a presumption that suppression would be granted until an accused reached trial, unless others would suffer from non-publication, the accused sought publication or publication would help in an investigation causing other witnesses or victims to come forward.

The Government turned down the proposal.

Dr Young questioned the value of having people's name published when they first appeared in court.

"What is the public's interest in knowing names of an accused before trial?"

Philip Morgan, QC, said the interests of open justice were not being impeded by interim suppression orders which would eventually be lifted anyway.

"It is all going to come out at some stage in the future because ultimately, unless they are acquitted on everything, there is never going to be a final [suppression] order."

He said he did not understand the "angst" of the media wanting to publish names immediately.

"The police charge somebody, the media blast it all over the papers and six months later it's withdrawn and the withdrawal is not published but it sticks in people's minds," Mr Morgan said.

"Somebody can be charged with an offence and can have their public and private reputation completely ruined by something they are not even guilty of."

What they don't want you to know

Five years ago, the Weekend Herald ran a weekly count of suppression orders on information that courts and Government departments don't want you to know.

This week, we decided to recount. The results were astounding. Here is what was suppressed this week:

The names or any details of two 21-year-olds charged with the murder of Chinese student Wan Biao. One faces a charge of murder, the other faces a charge of being an accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence. Both were granted name suppression for two months.

The name of a 21-year-old charged with assisting one of the offenders to avoid conviction and unlawfully detaining Wan Biao.

The name of a New Plymouth doctor facing 35 charges of sexual offending who is still practising.

The name of two Marlborough police officers charged with separate assaults.

Evidence given on the last day of the deposition hearing for Michael Scott Wallace to decide if he should stand trial for the murder of German backpacker Birgit Brauer.

The name of a 49-year-old man charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the murder of Puketitiri farmer Jack Nicholas.

The name of a 39-year-old company director who appeared in Wellington District Court facing 20 charges under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act of possessing objectionable material. Of the charges, eight were for possessing movies involving bestiality, four were for child pornography, and eight were for stories and other text files about child sexual abuse.