Victoria Pheasant Riordan puts hands around her neck as she recounts Pauline Hanna's description of strangulation threat from Philip Polkinghorne.
Health officials are worried about ‘further deaths’ as a result of media coverage of the Polkinghorne trial but attempts to suppress key aspects of his defence have been unsuccessful.
The principles of open justice have been upheld, once again, as health officials and academics try to have details of thePhilip Polkinghorne murder trial kept out of the public spotlight.
Concerned about media reporting of the case - and in particular the details of Polkinghorne’s defence that his wife Pauline Hanna took her own life - Suicide Prevention Office principal advisor Tania Papalii has written to the High Court, seeking a non-publication order on the alleged method of the alleged suicide.
Papalii’s email was accompanied by four letters of support, from academics and medical experts in Auckland, Melbourne, Vienna, and Toronto. The three overseas experts appear to have been alerted to media coverage by an Auckland University professor.
The experts are worried about contagion suicides as a result of coverage of the Polkinghorne case, although the Ministry of Health won’t say if it believes there have been any such suspected cases.
“The suicide prevention sector is particularly worried about there being further deaths associated with this case, which has initiated an intervention to monitor for, any associated death, particularly by the method being described in significant detail,” wrote Papalii.
Auckland University director of population mental health Dr Sarah Fortune said: “... it is my view, that the repeated coverage, including detailed photographs of means associated with suicide, has a very real prospect of causing an increase in deaths by suicide in New Zealand. It is my opinion that it makes no material difference to the potential for suicide contagion that this is a criminal matter compared with a matter before the Coroners court.”
But these concerns conflict with the principles of open justice, and the media’s responsibility - and duty - to be the eyes and ears for the public, fairly and accurately reporting both the prosecution and defence cases.
Justice Graham Lang is presiding over the trial of Philip Polkinghorne. Photo / Michael Craig
Justice Graham Lang has once again upheld those principles.
He said in a minute on Tuesday that he acknowledged the experts’ concerns.
“However, I have very limited ability to intervene in the manner in which the case is being reported. In this context, I can do no better than attach a copy of the minute that I issued on 2 August 2024 in response to similar concerns raised by Mark Wilson on behalf of the Mental Health Foundation.”
On that occasion, Justice Lang said he did not propose to make any direction to news media.
“The short point is that the court has no power to dictate the manner in which accredited news organisations report proceedings in court,” he wrote.
“This reflects the fact that such organisations are the primary means by which court proceedings are reported and thereby made transparent to the community at large. The court will generally only interfere when a proceeding is reported in a manner that may jeopardise the defendant’s right to a fair trial or where wider concerns arise as to the administration of the criminal justice process. The reporting of proceedings in the present case has not yet engaged either of those principles.
“I therefore do not propose to make any direction or suggestion to news media organisations as to how they should report the case in the future.”
Philip Polkinghorne has denied killing his wife Pauline Hanna. Photo / Michael Craig
Wilson had earlier written to the High Court: “The exposure to such detailed court evidence could well elevate risk in people vulnerable to suicide. Of primary concern is the quantity of information being reported by the New Zealand Herald live feed. It includes witness accounts, photographs and videos and detail on the mechanics of a common suicide method in New Zealand.”
He asked the court whether “discretion could be applied when publishing video/photographs or in the reporting, particularly on the live stream feed used by the New Zealand Herald and Stuff”.
“The immediacy of this reporting tends toward sounding sensational and often includes graphic details. The implications of such widespread communication may well lead to suicide deaths.”
In an earlier email to the court, NZ Herald publisher NZME rejected the assertion its coverage was sensational or graphic.
NZME general counsel Genevieve O’Halloran said the “media discretion” that the foundation was seeking went beyond “the responsible reporting that the NZ Herald has already demonstrated and undermines our journalists’ ability to cover the murder trial”.
“The NZ Herald is cognisant of the risk that the trial coverage may distress readers,” O’Halloran wrote.
“Accordingly, warnings have been placed at the top of its text coverage and prior to any video coverage. Its coverage of the trial is neither sensational nor graphic; it is simply a straight report of proceedings.”
O’Halloran said that one of the key questions for the jury to determine was whether Polkinghorne’s defence was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“Discretion is routinely applied when reporting content likely to distress our readers. However, this is balanced against our court reporters’ duty to accurately and faithfully convey the case for both the defence and the prosecution. There is a high public interest in our ability to carry out this duty.”
Opinion: Reporting responsibly and fairly
Media companies take their responsibilities in covering court seriously.
An example in this case last week: During a cross-examination, Ron Mansfield KC - who is representing Polkinghorne - paused to tell Justice Lang the evidence he was about to refer to was sensitive and to urge discretion from the media. The judge agreed discretion should be shown.
For the remainder of that cross-examination, media - including the NZ Herald in its live coverage - reported very limited details.
Philip Polkinghorne, left, and Ron Mansfield KC arrive at the Auckland High Court. Photo / Jason Oxenham
In a statement provided through one of its media advisors, Sanjana George, the Ministry of Health said it supported “a fair and open media”.
“It is not appropriate for us to comment on this matter while it is before the courts. The ministry’s role is to provide information about discussing suicide methods in the media, and our correspondence was intended to bring this information to the judge’s awareness. The ministry respects the independence of the court and does not intend to take any further action.”
Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.
