The suppressed information was quickly pulled from the courts website this morning. Photo / NZME
The suppressed information was quickly pulled from the courts website this morning. Photo / NZME
Potentially identifying details of a child sex offence victim were published online due to a blunder with a system designed to increase transparency in the justice system.
The victim's relationship to the offender, who does not have name suppression, was published on the Courts of NZ website on Thursday, the day after the court began publishing written submissions online to improve open justice.
Child victims and victims of sexual offending have automatic name suppression under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
Suppression of a person's name includes a ban on publishing "any particulars likely to lead to the person's identification", according to legislation.
The information, contained in written submissions from Crown Law, was quickly pulled from the site after the Office of the Chief Justice was warned it could risk breaching suppression.
A spokeswoman for the Office of the Chief Justice said the particular was included in the submission "in error".
"The name of any victim of sexual offending is suppressed by operation of statute. In order to provide protection to complainants, and to give effect to the name suppression, courts do not permit other particulars to be published that could identify a victim of sexual offending. The nature of what is or is not an identifying particular can vary depending on the particulars of a case," she said.
Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann said the courts took "a very precautionary approach" to identifying particulars because of the impact on a complainant of being identified.
"Although we believe it unlikely that the detail included in this case would be sufficient to identify the complainant, because of this precautionary approach the submission has been removed from the website," she said.
The court relies on the legal counsel making the submissions to make sure they do not include suppressed information and requires them to include a certification stating the submissions do not include suppressed information.
Court staff also carry out a further check on the submissions before they are uploaded to the website, but on this occasion that did not happen, the spokeswoman said.
"The court has reviewed and strengthened its processes in this regard."
Executive adviser to the Solicitor-General Elizabeth Underhill, speaking on behalf of Crown Law, said "significant efforts" were made to redact information from the submissions that wasn't suitable for publication.
"It appears that there was some information that may have allowed people with certain other knowledge to identify the complainant. When this issue was drawn to the court's attention, we understand our submissions were promptly taken down from the court's website."
Crown counsel were careful to make sure their written and oral submissions did not unnecessarily disclose suppressed information, she said.
"Sometimes judgment calls need to be made as to what it is appropriate for lawyers to be able to say in court when making submissions that touch on the relationship between participants, one of whom may have name suppression. Submissions, however, are made by lawyers for the benefit of the court when deciding the case before it rather than with a view to online publication."
The Supreme Court is undertaking a 12-month trial of the practice.
"Over this time Crown Law will be monitoring whether the practice affects or unduly limits the way the Crown's case is put to the court. Crown Law will make its views known to the court when it calls for feedback about the trial," Underhill said.
Crown Law have asked the court victim adviser to notify the victim of the incident.
The Office of the Chief Justice announced last week the submissions for Supreme Court appeal hearings would now be published on the Courts of NZ website.
The idea was to improve the transparency of court processes and advance public understanding of the court's work.
It follows a decision by the Supreme Court judges late last year.
The Supreme Court last year decided submissions would be published online to help improve open justice. File photo / Mark Mitchell
The initiative is to help media and the public access relevant information for cases, with the added benefit of supporting law schools to teach law, advocacy and procedure.
At the time of the announcement, Justice Winkelmann said the efforts to strengthen open justice must be consistent with the need to protect suppressed, confidential or sensitive information.
"We must balance the need for transparency with the interests of parties – including victims and their whānau – and other countervailing interests. The need for necessary safeguards means that there will be limited exceptions to the publication of submissions," she said.
