M.P. on contempt charges ‘in no special position’

Press, 16 July 1987, Page 3

M.P. on contempt charges ‘in no special position’

PA Wellington Mr John Banks’ role as a member of Parliament does not put him in a special position to make comments on forthcoming criminal trials, a contempt hearing was told in the High Court at Wellington yesterday. Mr Banks, the Broadcasting Corporation and Wellington Newspapers, Ltd, all face contempt charges arising from Mr Banks’ campaign against what he has called “recidivist violent offenders.” Opening the proceedings, the Solicitor-General, Mr Paul Neazor, said he had brought the case to court because Mr Banks had made statements “calculated to prejudice three criminal trials” which were pending at the time they were made. Two of those cases — of the convicted murderers, Peter Joseph Hol-

dem and Rufus Junior Marsh — have now been concluded. A third will not be heard because the accused, Mathew Whetu Rae, died before he could be tried on charges of murder and sexual violation. The contempt charges arise from comments Mr Banks made which were broadcast on a Radio New Zealand talkback last October 30, and others which were reported in the “New Zealand Sunday Times” on November 23. Mr Neazor said Mr Banks, the member of Parliament for Whangarei, was reckless about whether his comments would prejudice the administration of justice.

“Mr Banks is a member of Parliament and has duties to represent issues of concern to his constituents and of general importance to the community,” Mr Neazor told the

hearing, before the Chief Justice, Sir Ronald Davison.

“So far as my submissions are concerned there is no dispute about that. He is, however, placed in no special position to comment on pending trials by reason of that office.” Mr Neazor said that Holdem was arrested in Christchurch on October 20 and charged with the murder of a child five days before. The accused, Rae, who had since died was arrested in Auckland on October 23 and charged with the sexual violation and murder of a woman, aged 81. On October 30, when both men were in custody on remand, Mr Banks telephoned a radio talkback show to say he had been thinking about the woman and the family of the girl, aged six. Mr Neazor said these

passages were alleged to amount to a contempt. They were considered to prejudice the trials of Rae or Holdem or both by implying that both had previous convictions, and one had the convictions referred to in detail. Mr Neazor said that on November 20 a woman was killed in Wellington and that day Marsh was arrested and charged with murder. On November 21, Mr Banks issued a press statement which was reported in essence in the “Sunday Times” two days later. “In this case it is alleged that what was published implied that the person charged with the homicide in Wellington that week was a person with previous convictions for violent offending.” All the evidence in the case will be presented in a series of affidavits and Mr Neazor said there

would be no crossexamination. Mr Neazor said the defences would include the contention that all the material published could not be regarded as prejudicial of particular trials. The newspapers and the corporation would say there was no contempt because the comments were justified or related to issues of public interest or concern.

For Wellington Newspapers, Mr John Stevenson said the case had important issues relating to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.