The Law Commission published yesterday a report and recommendations to Government on suppression order. One chapter deals with the Internet, which I will talk about in more detail. First the major recommendations:
- starting point for considering publication of evidence and names should be a presumption of open justice
- suppression should only be used in exceptional cases where there were compelling reasons
- grounds on which suppression may be granted need to be clarified and tightened
- development of a national register of suppression orders should be advanced as a matter of high priority.
These all seem good and sensible moves to me. The use of suppression orders has been growing, and they should be the exception, not the rule. Having tighter criteria is a good step in the right direction.
I am especially pleased to see the recommendation for a register of suppression orders. It is very difficult to sometimes know what has or has not been suppressed. And this is a complaint not just from me, but from many in the media.
With regards to the Internet, they recommend:
Where an Internet service provider or content host becomes aware that they are carrying or hosting information that they know is in breach of a suppression order, it should be an offence for them to fail to remove the information or to fail to block access to it as soon as reasonably practicable.
The wording here is somewhat vague. Under the best case scenario this is not greatly different from the status quo. ISPs already have an implicit obligation to remove material if it is in breach of a suppression order.
But what has not been defined is is what they mean by carrying information, and what they mean by “become aware”. It is one thing to require an ISP to remove material hosted by that ISP. It is quite another to require them to try and block information from other sources. That would be highly undesirable, plus it won’t work. ISPs should be responsible (once notified) of material on their own networks, but not be ordered to block overseas sites such as Wikileaks etc.
What constitutes bringing the information to the attention of an ISP will need clarification also. I have no problem with an ISP having to remove material upon official request by the Solicitor-General and Crown Law. But just having a member of the public allege hosted material breaches a suppression order should not be enough. The ISP is not competent to decide what is or is not a breach of a suppression order – hence it should be an official agency that has to make the request.
So overall the main recommendations look to be a move in the right direction. The recommendation relating to the Internet is too vague to be able to say for sure at this stage.
In a fit of good timing, there is a seminar on the 3rd of December where some of these issues can be discussed and debated. The seminar, titled R v The Internet, is hosted by InternetNZ, the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice.
The seminar is at Te Papa, and has an impressive line up of speakers, including:
Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney-General
David Collins QC, Solicitor- General
Tony Smith, Dean, VUW Law School
Steven Price, Barrister & author of Media Minefield
Robert Lithgow QC
Brent Edwards, Media Committee, EPMU
Warren Young, Deputy President, Law Commission
Judge David Harvey
Sinead Bouchier, Group Online Editor, Fairfax
Ursula Cheer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Canterbury
I’m also taking part in one of the panels. I think it will be a fascinating day. It is intended for legal, media, and Internet professionals, and anyone can register to attend for $100 + GST. You can also apply for a discounted rate.Tags: contempt of court, Internet, InternetNZ, Law Commission, Ministry of Justice, name suppression