Suppression

Our society supports freedom of speech. However, at times we limit freedom of speech in support of other things that are important to us. One of those is the right to a fair trial.

In New Zealand we have given the ability to judges to suppress information when it might interfere with the administration of justice. For example, it is common for details of earlier offences to be suppressed on the grounds that people should be tried on the evidence, not on prejudice based on past behaviour.

We have also allowed judges to suppress the names of people caught up in trials through no fault of their own, the witnesses and victims, to help protect their privacy. Less commonly, we sometimes suppress the name of the convicted when it is seen that this may serve a greater purpose, either protecting the reputations of others or avoiding a disproportionate punishment to the guilty.

Law Commission

The Law Commission recently wrote a report, Suppressing Names and Evidence (PDF), that aims to reform how suppression is performed in New Zealand. It argues the whys and wherefores of why we allow information to be suppressed, recommends that name suppression should be less available than in the past, and generally tries to improve the procedures around it.

Tech Liberty

Tech Liberty is naturally a supporter of both freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial.

However, the Internet is proving to be a serious challenge to the old compromise. Recent cases have shown that suppressed information is readily available on the Internet. The Law Commission has called for ISPs to be obliged to take-down information that breaches a court suppression order, and others have talked about implementing some form of Internet filtering/censorship to block suppressed information on websites hosted overseas.

While we do not have a strong opinion on the arguments for and against suppression in general, we do have strong opinions about the possibility and desirability of suppressing information on the Internet.

It is our opinion that the days of suppression may be largely over and there may not be anything that anyone can do about it. Our goal is to ensure we do not unfairly punish people (e.g. making the ISPs liable for information others publish) or damage people’s rights to use the Internet to freely exchange ideas, in a futile attempt to keep it alive.

Tech Liberty Articles

Articles published on Tech Liberty about court-ordered suppression of information:

Tech Liberty summary of events at the R v Internet seminar held in Wellington on December 3rd, 2009:

  • Session 1 – Chris Finlayson (Attorney General), Tony Smith (law professor, VUW), David Collins (Solicitor General)
  • Session 2 – Panel discussion with Steven Price (media law expert), Robert Lithgow QC, Brent Edwards (journalist)
  • Session 3 – Warren Young (Law Commission) and Judge David Harvey
  • Session 4 – Panel discussion with Sinead Boucher (Fairfax), Ursula Cheer (associate professor, Canterbury), David Farrar (blogger)