IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE	
CRI-2019-404-183
[2019] NZHC 3121	

Under	The Criminal Procedure Act 2011	
In the matter	Of an appeal by a member of the media against District Court judgment [2019]
NZCD 7932 to permanently suppress details of offending	
BETWEEN	NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED
Appellant	
AND	FERGUS MCMAHON
First Respondent

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Second Respondent	

On the papers:	At Auckland	
Judgment:	29 November 2019	

ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT OF POWELL J
[Redaction of judgment to preserve privacy]

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 November 2019 at 3 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED v MCMAHON [2019] NZHC 3121 [29 November 2019]

[1]	On 25 October 2019 I issued judgment in this matter, allowing the appeal by NZME Publishing Limited (“NZME”) against a decision of the District Court suppressing details of offending for which Mr McMahon has recently been sentenced.1 At [36] of the judgment I set out:

It  is  noted  that  this  judgment  deals  with  personal   information  about Mr McMahon that extends well beyond the subject of the suppression orders. Accordingly, prior to publication of this judgment, the parties will have until 8 November 2019 to confer and make submissions as to whether there are any issues arising with regard to the publication of this judgment and whether there are any redactions that should appropriately be made.

[2]	Memoranda have been received on behalf of both Mr McMahon and NZME. There is no dispute that this Court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent the unnecessary disclosure of genuinely private information when there is no public interest served in doing so. It was also acknowledged that additional medical information was  provided  by  Mr  McMahon  at  the  hearing  before  me  which  Mr McMahon wished to remain private.

[3]	Against this background and having looked at the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that a number of redactions should be made in line with the detailed suggestions proposed by Mr Stewart on behalf of NZME. In particular, I am satisfied that the redactions proposed by Mr Stewart preserve Mr McMahon’s privacy while still enabling a reader to understand the basis for the judgment.

[4]	The  only  material  sought  to  be  redacted  by  Ms  Baier  on  behalf  of    Mr McMahon which I do not consider should be removed, relates to the references to Dr Allnut. The reason for this is that Dr Allnut’s report was referred to in the NSW District Court appeal decision and as such is clearly already in the public domain and not private information belonging to Mr McMahon.

[5]	The judgment incorporating the redactions set out above will be issued simultaneously with this addendum.

1	NZME Publishing Limited v McMahon [2019] NZHC 2727.

Powell J