Murder-trial application

Press, 12 March 1982, Page 21

Murder-trial application

PA Wellington An application has been made in the Court of Appeal by Wellington Newspapers, Ltd, publishers of the “Dominion” newspaper, seeking the removal of a court order forbidding publication of a part of the evidence in a recent murder trial. The application was in relation to the trial of Darrell Patai Wilson, aged 18. On September 2, 1981, the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction against Mr Wilson for the murder of Lorna Florence Robinson, aged 74, and ordered a new trial. The court was told the application raised matters of important principle relating to the administration of justice, freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press. At a retrial, in December, a jury acquitted Mr Wilson of the murder of Miss Robinson. The Court of .Appeal, in its judgment of September 2 last year, said that because there was to be a new trial there would also be an order forbidding the publication in any news media of any report or account of the whole or any part of the evidence held inadmissible bj r the court’s judgment. The court hearing the newspaper's motion comprised Mr Justice Cooke (presiding), Mr Justice Rich-

ardson and Mr Justice Holland. It reserved its decision. In support of the motion, Mr John Stevenson said the “Dominion” made an inquiry on December 17 of the registrar as to whether the suppression order was to continue. The “Dominion” was informed by letter of December 18 that the order remained in force and that the court would consider an application for discharge on notice to both parties. The matter would have come before the court if the company published and was cited for contempt.

“Such proceedings could test the validity of the whole or part of the order forbidding publication,” said Mr Stevenson. “However, the company has chosen the responsible course of making an application on motion to this court.” The editor of the “Dominion.” Mr Ted Frost, had deposed in an affidavit to his belief as to the importance of the matters raised in the application and to the desire of the “Dominion” to publish in whole or in part the evidence forbidden to be published.

Mr Stevenson submitted that only in the most extraordinary and exceptional cases could there be an injunction to perpetual secrecy

or to perpetual silence and there must also be a necessity. Arguing that in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to have a perpetual injunction to secrecy, he said the present order had elements of a perpetual injunction to secrecy. Mr Stevenson submitted that the grounds existed in the present case for the making of an order prohibiting publication before a final verdict was given or until further order of the court. Such an order would be restricted to what in the circumstances of the present case was a “necessity,” would be for only as long as was necessary for the administration of justice, and would be in accordance with the law. Replying for Mr Wilson, Mr Les Atkins said it had come to his attention that someone was writing a book about this matter. “It may be that the order so made would not extend to such an enterprise,” said Mr Atkins. "It may be in that sense the argument before your Honours today becomes at least partly academic. That fact can only, of course, assist the applicant in these particular proceedings. But I think the court should, be aware that project is contemplated. There may be

difficulties in relation to the order as it presently stands.” Mr Atkins said there had been reference on television after the second trial to a matter which could be in breach of the order made by the court. He said the way in which the court expressed itself in its judgment was to make clear that society should be protected from illtreatment or improper pressure. “And what is involved in that, in my submission, is restraint on police procedures,” he said. “Police procedures can be restrained by this court or the High Court refusing to accept or allow evidence to be adduced which has been obtained improperly, and that in itself is discouragement of the sort of practices which are held to be improper.

“But, in my submission, it is only a partial discouragement of those practices if the matter can then go on to be tried in the court of public opinion.”

Mr Atkins submitted that to discourage the practices which were held to be undesirable it was or might be necessary to exercise juris dication over the disputed evidence and to disallow its subsequent publication.