by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Panpa Bulletin : May 2011
How do you increase profit potential today, and become more profitable as the publishing business model changes? That takes a Kodak Solution. Kodak can help you maximise the efficiency and reliability of your workflow, so you can benefit from more automation and more control. And by merging the flexibility of digital with the power of offset, we can help you leverage each for maximum return. Once you are able to deliver commercial quality and newspaper productivity, you can drive more profit with shorter runs and quicker turns. Let us show you how you can profit today, and tomorrow. Visit us at PrintEx11 on stand 1514 to learn more. IT’S TIME TO MEET TODAY'S DEADLINES THE NEEDS OF TOMORROW. ©Kodak2011.Kodakisatrademark. It’s time for you Kodak NEWSPAPER SOLUTIONS FROM KODAK Cons umables | Workflow Systems | CTP | Digital Print www.panpa.org.au The PANPA Bulletin | MAY 2011 | 1 the silent treatment THE New Zealand media and pub- lic are used to so-called celebrities hiding behind court suppression orders. Judges remain far too ready to grant such secrecy and the “enter- tainer” or “prominent sportsman” who has beaten his partner or drunkenly molested a stranger gets away without this criminal behav- iour being exposed. The defences that granny is too sick to deal with any family fallout, or that employment would be adversely affected, are such stock in trade of defence lawyers it’s a wonder they can deliver them with a straight face. That may be about to change under a far-reaching overhaul of the court system embodied in the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill currently before New Zealand’s Parliament. And the Media Freedom Com- mittee – administered by the New Zealand Newspaper Publishers’ Association and representing all mainstream media including print, radio and television – is doing its best to ensure that the justice system becomes more open. The committee made an extensive submission on the Bill and appeared before Parliament’s Justice and Elec- toral Select Committee on March 17 to argue its case. The starting point was that sup- pression orders are far too readily applied in this county, far more so than in several comparable Com- monwealth countries, and this undermines the principle of public access to the courts as an essential element of our system of justice. It was acknowledged this is a con- tentious area, even more so in the internet age, that requires a balance between the judiciary’s need to en- sure a fair trial and the media’s role as public surrogates in a courtroom. The Bill as proposed raises the bar on defence arguments, stating “extreme hardship” and “real risk of prejudice” are the tests for suppres- sion. The fact that a defendant is well known does not, of itself, constitute extreme hardship, a clause wel- comed by the MFC. It added: “To the argument it is not fair to single anyone out, the answer is they are invariably people who are either held up as role mod- els and trade on that, or they have built their reputations by courting publicity. “They cannot expect to turn it off when it doesn’t suit them.” Editors are pleased that the law would explicitly say that all suppres- sion orders are reviewable at any time but are perturbed at a provision that if the term of an order is not specified, “it has permanent effect”. Sometimes, good reason exists for evidence or identities to be sup- pressed during a court case in order to ensure a fair trial. However, judges should use their power to suppress sparingly, impose orders for as short a time as possible, ensure that they are narrow in scope, and be precise as to their ambit. This provision, if adopted, ap- pears to fly in the face of the Law Commission’s discussion paper on suppression, on which this Bill is largely based. The commission said: “Open justice has been regarded as an important safeguard against judicial bias, unfairness and incompetence, ensuring that judges are accountable in the performance of their judicial duties. “It is also thought to maintain public confidence in the impartial administration of justice by ensuring that judicial hearings are subject to public scrutiny.” Members of the mainstream me- dia also have concerns about the implications of the law that confers automatic suppression of identity in sex crimes. As written, the law makes it ex- traordinarily difficult to alert the community to people who have abused their positions in respect of under-18s in their care. This can mean that other victims do not come forward, simply be- cause – unless the bush telegraph is working – they do not learn that Mr X, who interfered with them when they were young, also interfered with others. The MFC noted the Bill would markedly increase penalties for breaching suppression orders. Editors are emphatic that a corol- lary to increased penalties must be a way for M FC members to know that such orders exist. The mainstream media does not blatantly breach suppression orders. On the odd occasion when this does occur, it is invariably a result of misunderstanding or poor com- munication. Editors have lobbied for years for a register of suppression orders to be set up, similar to that which exists in South Australia, and which the Standing Committee of Attorneys- General in Australia is considering. MFC representatives have three- monthly meetings with Ministry staff to work through issues that concern court registries and MFC members. Those meetings, which have been happening now for five years, have had on their agenda from the early days the creation of just such a reg- ister. It is something that the Law Com- mission itself, though initially doubt- ful, has now agreed is a good idea. Higher courts judges have also written to the Minister of Justice in the past six months to say that they support such a register. It is accepted there would need to be strict controls and protocols around access. The MFC is not argu- ing it should be publicly available. It is also expected that the authori- ties will target members of the on- line community – that is, bloggers, or those participating in message boards – with the same enthusiasm as they target members of the main- stream media. The NZ Justice Minister, Simon Powers . . . high court judges have told him they support a register New Zealand considers register for suppression orders Opinion Tim Pankhurst Tim Pankhurst, chief Executive, NZNPA, Secretary Media Freedom committee