A TV3 executive says former principal Family Court judge Patrick Mahony should be in the dock alongside the network facing contempt charges for publishing details of a custody battle.
The television company is defending charges in the High Court at Wellington that, with National MP Nick Smith and Radio New Zealand, they fought one side of a battle for custody of a little boy in a "trial by media".
It was revealed yesterday that Judge Mahony himself had complained to the Solicitor-General about the media's treatment of the story.
But Terence Taylor, executive producer for TV3's 20/20 programme, said the company believed Judge Mahony had "opened the door" for it to broadcast details of the case.
Mr Taylor cited several examples which he said showed Judge Mahony had revealed details of the case in an interview on Radio New Zealand, including his opinion that the case had taken too long.
Robert Lithgow, prosecuting alongside Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, suggested Judge Mahony was talking generally about the Family Court.
He attacked the balance in TV3's Tug of Law documentary, saying the station had proceeded with one side of the story just because "one lot had sounded off" about it.
The case concerns a couple who gave temporary custody of their child to a cousin five years ago but never got him back.
Family Court cases are suppressed, including names and all details of the case.
Mr Taylor said TV3 had proceeded on the basis that "we had not broken the law because Judge Mahony could not have been found guilty of doing the same thing".
When Justice John Wild pointed out it was TV3, not Judge Mahony, in court, he replied: "It would seem to me that if we are here, so should Judge Mahony [be]."
Earlier, Dr Smith fiercely denied accusations that he rang the cousin, accused her of stealing the child and told her that "Parliament is the highest court in the land".
Dr Smith said he phoned the cousin to get her side of the story before going public. He wanted to check some facts with her, which he said was reasonable and proper.
He said he was hurt by some of the cousin's evidence, some of which was "incorrect". She had name suppression and he did not.
- NZPA
Judge should be in dock too says TV3 executive
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.