Better rights to court papers sought

Press, 15 July 1980, Page 5

Better rights to court papers sought

FA Auckland The High Court subcommittee of the Auckland District Law Society "ants greater freedom for the press and public in examining court documents.

It believes the right to search court files in civil proceedings should not depend on some ill-defined "registrar's discretion" as it does at present. In a five-page report, the sub-committee concludes that “in general,

right of search should not be refused unless there .are or. may be positive reasons for doing so, tor example the likelihood of injury to reputation or business interests.” The right should extend only to documents (such as statements of claim and defence) which reveal the essential nature of the proceedings. The sub-committee said: "In national or local public affairs, it may be useful for the public to know . of litigation affecting Government or local bodies- or | public figures. "In consumer affairs members of the public may be influenced by. for example, the knowledge that 20 writs have been issued against a pharmaceutical company for ! damage caused by thalidoj mide or that 10 debt-col-I lecting writs have been i issued against Securiti- ; bank.” There was also a gen- ; era! feeling that in the ■ field of defmation and | access to public informaI tion the pendulum in New

Zealand had swung too far in favour of the individual and against freedom of speech and reporting. “The right to search a court file is one, albeit minor, aspect of striking the right balance and the present climate would, if anything, favour an increased freedom of the press," the sub-committee said.

Furthermore, it continued. the right to apply to the court for special dispensation to search files may not be a realistic alternative to seeing them as of right. The sub-committee said it recognised the competing interest of privacy of the individual and that there was no control over false statements made in some documents filed in court.

But. it said, there were already contempt laws to control anything that might prejudice a fair trial and it did not propose relaxing existing restrictions on access to files involving “personal” litigation.