Editorial: Secrecy in court must be checked

The granting of name suppression by browbeaten judges and justices of the peace has long since debunked the presumption of openness in court proceedings. All sorts of grounds, ranging from family or business reasons to celebrity status, have been used to justify an erring on the side of secrecy. Never, however, has there been an episode quite so extraordinary as that of two Hawkes Bay JPs suppressing their own names in court.

By any yardstick, the concealing of the identity of those hearing a case flies in the face of justice being seen to be done. The JPs' action will fuel the argument of those who believe only legally trained people should sit in the district court.

The JPs, who were presiding over an aggravated robbery depositions hearing, feared for their safety. Doubtless they were aware of instances in Palmerston North and Invercargill of justices' homes being targeted with paint pellets and fire bombs. Suppression of their own names was, however, never an option.

That is not to say their concerns do not have some merit. New Zealand's small size makes identification of home addresses relatively simple. Indeed, JPs, in their non-judicial role of taking affidavits and oaths and such like, need to have a community profile. That brings risks, especially for those involved in the second area of jurisdiction, the hearing of depositions, remands and bail applications, and ruling on minor offences, particularly cases high in emotion.

That risk can be overstated, however. Even in the United States, where threats against the judiciary are more widespread, only three federal judges have been killed since 1949. Equally, there are steps that judges and JPs can take to make themselves less vulnerable. Advanced home security systems are an obvious safeguard. It is also logical, in the case of judges, to keep their home addresses and telephone numbers off public documents. That is perhaps less of an option for JPs who, for purposes such as oath-taking, should be readily accessible. Yet those fearful for their safety should either limit their entries on public registers or not present themselves for duties in courts. Certainly, that is a far more feasible proposition than concealing their identity from the public when the defendants, at least, know who is on the bench. In any case, if there is evidence of intimidation, the contempt of court provisions or police prosecutions could surely make an example of those targeting JPs.

This incident, however, is only the oddest of an increasing penchant for the granting of name suppression in the lower courts. Judges and JPs, harangued by defence counsel, are taking ever less notice of the Court of Appeal view that the starting point in matters of suppression must be the importance of open judicial proceedings and the right of the media to report them fairly and accurately as surrogates of the public. Just this week, a teacher facing more than a dozen charges of sexual offending was granted name suppression in the North Shore District Court. Never mind that, as the police noted, every school and every male teacher in the area now has a slur against them.

This trend towards secrecy has gone far enough. In a welcome development Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson says he will write to the JPs' Federation "to explain that the principle of open justice must be upheld".

But much more than this is needed. In the interests of open justice, the Law Commission should undertake a systematic investigation into name suppression and identify ways of ensuring the Court of Appeal's urging is heeded by individual members of the judiciary. The present situation, as highlighted by the case of the Hawkes Bay JPs, has become almost farcical.