Court on rare ground in smothering media fire

By Ron Taylor

The Family Court has imposed a sweeping ban on more publicity about the search for 3-year-old cancer patient Liam Williams-Holloway and his family.

Auckland lawyer Gary Gotlieb, who is well versed in Family Court proceedings, believes the court acted within its powers in blacking out all information on Liam's case in the hope that it will take pressure off his parents, who will then return him for orthodox medical treatment.

Lawyers for media organisations are asking that the gagging order be set aside. The case had been publicised by the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Agency (CYPS) and the police in the hope it would help to find the family.

Unlike other courts, the Family Court starts from the premise of complete privacy, with the public and news media banned from hearings.

Any information is made public at the court's discretion and after the affected parties have been heard.

Judge Edward Blaikie, of the Family Court in Dunedin, allowed the agency to use the news media to publicise the search for Liam after the child had been made a ward of the court.

But the flurry of publicity prompted Dunedin lawyer Alastair Logan, the court-appointed counsel for Liam, to try to stop media coverage.

Judge Blaikie agreed because "it may be a contributing factor in the parents' decision to remain in hiding."

Family Court lawyer Deirdre Milne said she was surprised the agency had asked for the publicity in the first place.

"It strikes me the whole thing has got out of hand, what with the police conducting searches of premises [for Liam or evidence of his treatment] ... but I'm not sure that the court has the power to prohibit an examination [by the media] of what the police are doing.

"I've a suspicion that everybody's gone too far in a number of directions. The court may have gone a bit farther than it's entitled, the police a bit too far, CYPS too far - everybody is pushing the boundaries.

"It's time to sit back and say `let's talk,' for Liam's sake."

However, there was little doubt that the court had the right to say which part, if any, of its proceedings should be reported or prohibited.

CYPS spokesman Stephen Ward declined to discuss the case and the way the agency had handled the publicity.

"We can't discuss matters before the Family Court."

Wellington media lawyer Sandra Moran said Judge Blaikie's total ban was rare. Normally such prohibitions related to a particular article, television or radio programme.

"While Family Court matters have automatic legislative protection, to go beyond that and really ban anybody from saying anything [about Liam's case] is extremely wide.

"If you're going to do that there must be really compelling reasons in the public interest, which should be heard and properly tested before any order is imposed. But in this case it was just an application [by Mr Logan] without calling evidence," said Sandra Moran.

"Because there's a lot of media interest in something, some judges tend to get sensitive about it and really like to shut down the media to quieten things down.

"The problem is you could do that in a number of things if you find something personally distasteful, although it's not in the public interest to have a ban."