Media push 'murky boundaries'
Rules governing when media can publish potentially prejudicial material before trials are unclear, leaving news organisations to "take a punt" and push boundaries, law experts say.
Associate Professor Scott Optican, of the Auckland University faculty of law, said The Dominion Post's decision to report yesterday inadmissible evidence from the police Operation Eight affidavit reflected strong public interest in the case. But it had to be weighed against the right to a fair trial for 16 people arrested on arms charges in the so-called police terror raids last month.
Decisions over whether to bring contempt charges against media were open to interpretation.
"You kind of have to take a punt and see what happens. What rules does the media have? The media gets to test the waters and see what the reaction is," he said.
"I think the media needs clear rules."
There are now calls for the Crown Law Office to take action against The Dominion Post for publishing the material.
But others say the information shows the police had to act against potential terrorism threats and highlights the public's right to know.
Police are investigating whether TV3 should face charges for publishing material last week from the police affidavit.
Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope has announced that the investigation will now include material published in The Dominion Post or any other publication that could breach court suppression orders or compromise criminal proceedings.
Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, said it was illegal to possess intercepted communications belonging to police.
It was up to police to decide whether to prosecute.
Lawyer Annette Sykes, who represents several of the accused, said yesterday's publication was part of a "systematic approach" by some media outlets to avoid following court orders. "It's a matter we'll talk about in court."
Canterbury University associate professor-in-law Ursula Cheer said rules stipulating how far media organisations could push boundaries when reporting matters of strong public interest before criminal trials were murky.
The solicitor-general had not actually pursued anyone for potential breaches. "I guess it could be argued that it's hard for the media to know what it can and can't do.
"There's been quite a few circumstances where it's arguable that perhaps there has been a contempt but the parties haven't been pursued."
She cited the media's handling of the quashing of David Bain's murder convictions as an example.
Global Peace and Justice spokesman John Minto said police had effectively committed the 16 charged after the terror raids to "trial by media" by leaking material to news organisations.
The action was despicable when the material was yet to be seen by the accused or their lawyers, he said. Activists would have to wait up to 18 months before presenting their side of the story.
"Having lost via legal channels, the police are now trying to pillory the accused via the media. The failure of our police and politicians to defend the rights of those arrested is despicable."