Media Law

Need for codification of contempt of court?

Some legislation in Evidence Act, but need more?

Common law offence

contempt of court as it affects freedom of expression, namely contempt laws which restrict comment on pending judicial proceedings and criticism of judges and courts. It should be noted that there is a third freedom of expression issue related to the contempt of court doctrine—when a journalist is held in contempt for refusing to obey a court order to disclose a source.

The sub judice rule says that when a case is before the courts, no-one is permitted to comment on it in a way that may prejudice the outcome.

There should be codification because:

• There is uncertainty; a lack of clarity in the common law with regard to contempt of court; e.g. editors who have responsibility for output bur are unaware of the content

• Disagreement in judiciary as to application of s 24(e) of NZBORA

• the practical ambit of the law of contempt has been considerably reduced by the creation of more targeted criminal offences,

• should follow UK approach – statutory solutions overlaying common law

• scandalizing the court = defamation of judicially in effect?

• no single, authoritative, up-to-date statement of the law which is easily accessible – primary sources are all found scattered in case law and statutes, so it is a good idea to codify it, put everything in one place so no mistakes about forgetting certain requirements/elements of contempt

• different forms of media that now exist, constantly expanding arenas for discussion – broadcasting/newspaper no longer most influential medium for transmitting breaking news – with introduction of Twitter, Facebook – updates by the second, almost instantaneously we are able to find out events that occur on the other side of the world – renders much of the law of contempt out of date;

• codify to take into account media developments - internet – accessible by jurors should they wish to research further

•...