Editorial: Welcome words on courtroom secrecy

OPINION: The Law Commission is, according to its website, an independent, government-funded organisation that reviews laws that need updating, reforming, or developing.

The Labour-led governments of Helen Clark kept it busy and its recommendations had a high success rate because of president Sir Geoffrey Palmer's direct line to the offices of the prime minister and justice minister.

The commission's influence might have waned a tad under Prime Minister John Key's National-led Government. It must again send its reports to Justice Minister Simon Power – a stickler for protocol – via the Justice Ministry. That will be bad only if Mr Power regards them only as yet more bureaucratic advice to be read, then ignored.

It is to be hoped, for example, that he carefully considers its latest set of recommendations, this time on courts' suppression of names and evidence, because they have the potential to restore respect for the process.

Rightly or wrongly, a public increasingly suspicious of all authority seems instinctively to assume today that, if a judge decides to keep secret the identity of someone accused of a crime, he or she does so because the accused is a celebrity. The recent decision by district court judge Eddie Paul to protect a Kiwi musician discharged without conviction on a charge of indecent assault is a case in point.

The commission recommends that the grounds on which suppression may be granted be clarified and tightened so they become "transparent, explicit and consistently applied". It suggests, too, that judges must give reasons for granting or declining a suppression order and that temporary orders granted at an accused's first appearance have an expiry date.

Sir Geoffrey and crew have also been bold. In recommending that the maximum penalties for breaching suppression orders be bumped up to six months' jail or a $100,000 fine for a media outlet, they have also accepted the argument that the corollary must be that suppression orders are easier to track down. They say "the case for a reliable and up-to-date register of suppression orders to allow journalists to confirm the terms and duration of the order becomes even more compelling". Hallelujah.

The mainstream media, who attend courts as the public's surrogates, will largely applaud these recommendations – they almost never deliberately flout a court order. But it is hard to abide by the rules when it is hard to ascertain just what orders are in place.

However, fairness demands that any penalties facing editors equally face bloggers who sound off about those before the courts in the anarchy of the blogosphere before and during a trial. If the powers-that-be determine that that is just too hard, they need to ask themselves about the value of suppression law in the internet age.

- © Fairfax NZ News