NZ: Nick Smith found guilty of contempt of court
From http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2854514a10,00.html
T O P S T O R Y
Nick Smith found guilty of contempt of court
24 March 2004
National MP Nick Smith has been found guilty of contempt of court after commenting on a case which was before the Family Court.
In a reserved decision released this afternoon, Justices Wild and MacKenzie found Dr Smith, TV3 and Radio New Zealand to be in contempt of court after a five-day trial last month.
Dr Smith faced charges over his alleged interference in and criticism of a Family Court case.
The charges were laid by Solicitor-General Terrence Arnold, after public statements Dr Smith made last year about the case, which related to a custody battle over a child.
Family Court proceedings are supposed to be confidential.
The conviction raised the prospect that Dr Smith could lose his seat in Parliament.
Under the Electoral Act, MPs must automatically resign from Parliament if found guilty of any offence punishable by a jail term of two or more years.
There are no limits on the jail terms or fines which can be imposed for contempt of court.
Clerk of the House David McGee said he had no comment when approached about that prospect.
Speaker Jonathan Hunt also had no comment, his spokeswoman said.
The justices said the issues of penalties and costs were "for further submission and decision".
Dr Smith's involvement prevented a father absconding with his child and ensured the case was heard by the Family Court, his lawyer, John Upton QC, had told the High Court in Wellington in his closing submissions last month.
Mr Upton also said at the time that Dr Smith's comments on the case, even if they breached Family Court confidentiality rules, could not amount to the serious offence of contempt of court.
However, it was an extreme case that had required extreme measures, and was unlikely to happen again, he said.
"Dr Smith's conduct was the antithesis of contempt. Not only did he dissuade the parents from not going to court, he positively encouraged them (to go)."
TV3 and Radio New Zealand were charged with contempt after reporting details of the case.
For TV3, lawyer Clare Bradley had argued that a conviction would curtail freedom of speech and the freedom of the media.
In broadcasting its programme, TV3 was scrutinising an exceptional case in the public interest, she said. It had ensured the individuals involved could not be identified.
RNZ had already broadcast details of the case so TV3 thought that opened the way for its coverage.
There was no evidence that the TV3 programme had influenced the Family Court or that it had deterred people from taking their cases to the court, she said.
For RNZ, lawyer John Tizard earlier told the court it was legitimate for the broadcaster to raise public concerns about the case. There would have been no contempt charges if it had raised concerns about a criminal case.
Also appearing for RNZ, lawyer Sandra Moran said during the trial the fact that Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahony chose to be interviewed showed the case raised significant issues.
There was no suggestion that Radio New Zealand's broadcasts had any influence on the participants in the case, she argued.
END
|
