Lawyer Sue Grey (left) and anti-vaccination mandate protesters outside the Auckland High Court as a case was heard over the supply of blood to a 4-month-old baby in Starship hospital who required urgent surgery. Grey was representing the child's parents. Photo / Alex Burton
Lawyer Sue Grey (left) and anti-vaccination mandate protesters outside the Auckland High Court as a case was heard over the supply of blood to a 4-month-old baby in Starship hospital who required urgent surgery. Grey was representing the child's parents. Photo / Alex Burton
Sue Grey faced a disciplinary hearing over allegedly naming a child in interviews, in breach of name suppression laws.
Grey, representing the child’s parents, claimed the slip was due to tiredness and confusion.
The tribunal has reserved its decision on the case.
Lawyer Sue Grey, who hit national headlines during the Covid pandemic and the rise of anti-vaccination activism, has been grilled by the legal profession over allegations she named a child in an interview whose identity was secret.
Grey argued it was a mistake, brought about by tiredness, confusionand the melee surrounding the high-profile matter in late 2022.
The alleged slip occurred when the Nelson-based lawyer was interviewed while representing the parents of the baby at the centre of a stand-off over the use of vaccinated people’s blood in what doctors argued was necessary, life-saving surgery.
“I completely accept the obligations of solicitors in relation to name suppression, and I didn’t intend to breach them,” Grey said.
But she felt singled out by the disciplinary process. She said it felt “unreasonable” and “without precedent” and that it bordered on a dangerous type of censorship around matters of high public interest.
She feared it might inhibit lawyers from speaking out on behalf of clients, and that it might have “a crushing effect on their courage to do the hard cases”.
The tribunal pointed out the difference between freedom of speech and suppression.
Lawyer Sue Grey outside the Nelson District Court. Photo / Tracy Neal
The tribunal, made up of a panel of senior lawyers and judges, was hearing a charge against Grey brought by the NZ Law Society’s disciplinary committee, the National Standards Committee which asserted that the use of the child’s name and that of the parents was a breach of the statutory name suppression laws that applied because these proceedings came under the Care of Children Act.
Grey said at one level it was a case of “the horse having bolted”, given the frenzied interest in the family’s plight and public protests outside court that included photos of the child’s face on placards.
She said it was like being at a football match or a rock concert and she had never experienced anything like it in her career.
The tribunal said the suppression order aimed to stop what was already in the public domain from travelling further, for the sake of the child in the future.
But in December 2022, Grey took part in an online interview with anti-vaccination campaigner Liz Gunn, in which she allegedly said the child’s first name.
It was alleged she did the same a day later during another online interview with a Canadian website.
It attracted a complaint from lawyers for Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ.
Paul Collins, for the standards committee, believed it was a charge capable of being seen as misconduct.
Misconduct is defined under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act as when a person’s conduct would reasonably be considered “disgraceful and dishonourable” by lawyers of good standing.
Findings of misconduct can result in penalties that include suspension.
Gunn, a former broadcaster, was also alleged to have named the infant.
At one point in the hearing, Grey blamed Gunn for what happened, saying that at the time she had faith in the former broadcaster’s ability to do her job and followed her lead.
Collins said Grey had a responsibility at the very least to point out the suppression orders around the matter.
It was alleged the breach occurred in circumstances where Grey knew or should have known the effect of automatic name suppression.
“What this case is about is whether the practitioner’s words breached automatic suppression, amounting to professional irresponsibility,” Collins said.
Grey said if she hadn’t been so tired, she doubted she would have slipped up.
“The Standards Committee asserts that these events involve breaches of the practitioner’s fundamental duty to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice,” Collins said.
Collins said high levels of awareness were needed by lawyers who agreed to engage with the media on behalf of a family on contentious matters.
“It’s my submission that there is ample evidence to show that the practitioner knew or should have known that she was stepping into what I described in my written submissions as...a minefield.
“She used the names. That was a breach.”
Grey said in closing that the process had been exhausting and devastating, and had left her wondering if she was strong enough to continue practising law.
“I completely respect the law. I love the law and it’s really challenging when you need to advocate boldly and without making an error.
“This has been a massive learning curve and all I can say is, I didn’t intend to do anything wrong.”
The tribunal has reserved its decision.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
