Youth Court Decisions How to Use Full list of key titles CYPFA section Date

Department of Social Welfare v Publisher (1993) 10 FRNZ 148 (DC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Department of Social Welfare v Publisher
Reported: (1993) 10 FRNZ 148
File number: CRN1004053324-7
Date: 29 January 1993
Court: District Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: Satyanand DCJ
Charge:
CYPFA: s38
Key Title: Media Reporting; Family Group Conference – Report from
Brooker’s summary:

Children and young persons - Confidentiality - Disclosure of information - Family group conference - Report of proceedings - All elements of offence proved - Jurisdiction of District Court to hear case - Role of media in juvenile proceedings - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 2, 37, 38, 150, 247, 271; Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 43; Criminal Justice Act 1985, s 138; Crimes Act 1961, s 25.

A leading magazine was alleged to have published an article containing identifiable details of a family group conference. The author of the article participated in that particular conference in the capacity of the victim's (her son) support person. In the article, reference was made to the people present and to what had happened. Although the victim, the offender, and the Government officials were not named, the venue and at least one volunteer social worker were referred to by name. In order to secure convictions, the informant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the author and publisher breached the confidentiality provision under s 38 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The elements of the offence requiring proof were those of (a) publication, (b) intention, (c) a report of proceedings not validated by s 38(2), and (d) identifiable proceedings of a particular conference.

A preliminary issue was whether the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case when s 150 of the Act referred to proceedings being undertaken in the Family Court only. It was, however, agreed between counsel and conceded by the defendants that the only way in which an alleged offence could be brought to book was by way of prosecution under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and by way of prosecution in the District Court proper.

Note: At the end of the case, the Judge addressed the role of the media in light of the new jurisprudence affecting children and young persons brought in by the 1989 Act.

Held, finding all four elements proved:

1) On the first element, the magazine's masthead confirms publication by the publisher, and the actions of the author in devising and presenting the story to the editor establish the element of publication.

(2) On the second element, s 38(1) and (4) must be read as requiring proof of intentional breach. The question of confidentiality was actively canvassed by the author and publisher through the editor. In deciding to publish notwithstanding the strictures against publication, the necessary mental intention is established against both defendants.[(1993) 10 FRNZ 148, 149]

(3) On the third element, the term "report" within s 38 is not restricted to an official record which did not include a personal account of what may have transpired at a family group conference. The Act must be given a purposive interpretation. In so doing, the question of confidentiality is of prime significance and publication must relate to private and unsolicited reports and accounts of what may have transpired as well.

(4) The fourth element is also proved by the youth justice coordinator's evidence that on reading the article she was able to recognise the case and its subject as being a particular conference held at the request of a police enforcement officer under s 247 of the Act.

Cases referred to

Police v Starkey [1989] 2 NZLR 373; (1989) 4 CRNZ 400

Hearing

This was a hearing on charges against the defendants for allegedly committing an offence against s 38 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in publishing a report of the proceedings of a family group conference.

The facts appear from the judgment.