RNZ earlier revealed pornography found on McSkimming’s work computer was being investigated as alleged objectionable material.
His lawyer, Linda Clark, was earlier granted a rare “superinjunction” by Justice Karen Grau that prohibited reporting that disclosed the nature of the allegedly objectionable material, as well as the existence of the injunction itself.
Following a teleconference held by Justice Gwyn, the order prohibiting publication of the nature of the allegedly objectionable material was continued – but the order prohibiting the existence of the injunction was not continued, meaning RNZ could report McSkimming’s application and the interim result.
On June 3, a hearing was held in the High Court at Wellington before Justice Grau in relation to the injunction. RNZ, NZME and Stuff were jointly represented by Robert Stewart KC.
On Friday, Justice Grau released her judgment, declining McSkimming’s application, but her reasons for doing so were suppressed and the existing interim injunction was continued to allow McSkimming time to file an appeal, should he wish to do so.
If no appeal is filed within five working days, the type of objectionable publication purportedly found on his work devices may be published.
At the injunction hearing, Clark began proceedings by telling the court she was seeking orders extending the current interim orders prohibiting media from disclosing the nature of the allegedly objectionable material reportedly found on his work device or devices.
The order was sought until further orders of the court.
Clark alleged information deemed “essential” to the investigation had been leaked to the media, who were intending to publish the information.
The information gathered during the police investigation was “confidential”, she said.
She said every time police had provided some substantive piece of information to McSkimming, it had appeared within the media “in a day or two days without exception”.
Clark said there was public interest in McSkimming’s situation. She said public interest had been served to date.
Stewart said there were two sorts of harm that could be considered, one of which was harm to the police investigation. He said the police had no concern that further disclosure of the material would impact their investigation.
In relation to privacy, Stewart said McSkimming was “quite clearly” a public figure.
“There is a huge public interest in these investigations into Mr McSkimming’s abrupt resignation from office, the first working day after he had been provided with the material by the Public Service Commission.”
Stewart said his clients submitted that, if the interim restraint should be continued, then “matters should be left to take their course, if there is to be any restraining at all, it should be as limited as possible for as short as possible”.
Crown prosecutor Stephanie Bishop, appearing for police, told the court that police did not oppose the application.
- RNZ
