What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom

The principle of open justice, including the media’s right to attend and report on criminal courts, must be balanced with the protection of individuals’ privacy and an accused person’s fair trial rights. Prohibiting media from identifying those involved in criminal cases is one way privacy and fair...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Francine Tyler
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Asia Pacific Network 2020
Materias:	court reporting contempt of court crime reporting fair trial rights media law name suppression Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/96fd815eefa64b31be56fb2ead5676e9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:96fd815eefa64b31be56fb2ead5676e9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:96fd815eefa64b31be56fb2ead5676e92021-12-02T10:34:36ZWhat’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom10.24135/pjr.v26i1.10931023-94992324-2035https://doaj.org/article/96fd815eefa64b31be56fb2ead5676e92020-07-01T00:00:00Zhttps://ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/1093https://doaj.org/toc/1023-9499https://doaj.org/toc/2324-2035 The principle of open justice, including the media’s right to attend and report on criminal courts, must be balanced with the protection of individuals’ privacy and an accused person’s fair trial rights. Prohibiting media from identifying those involved in criminal cases is one way privacy and fair trial rights may be protected in New Zealand. Court news was not always restricted in this way: 115 years ago all parts of criminal court proceedings could be reported and media decided what information was censored. In 1905, New Zealand judges were given the power to suppress court evidence to protect public morality, and 15 years later, the power to suppress the names of certain first offenders to give them a second chance. The laws now stretch to suppressing many kinds of evidence and the identities of some people accused and convicted of New Zealand’s most serious crimes. Investigation of the 115-year-long evolution of New Zealand’s name suppression laws illuminates a piecemeal, but severe, curtailment of media freedom and a trend of imposition of increasingly complex laws which journalists must keep abreast of, understand and observe to prevent appearing before the courts themselves. Francine TylerAsia Pacific Networkarticlecourt reportingcontempt of courtcrime reportingfair trial rightsmedia lawname suppressionCommunication. Mass mediaP87-96Journalism. The periodical press, etc.PN4699-5650ENPacific Journalism Review, Vol 26, Iss 1 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	court reporting contempt of court crime reporting fair trial rights media law name suppression Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650
spellingShingle	court reporting contempt of court crime reporting fair trial rights media law name suppression Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650 Francine Tyler What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom
description	The principle of open justice, including the media’s right to attend and report on criminal courts, must be balanced with the protection of individuals’ privacy and an accused person’s fair trial rights. Prohibiting media from identifying those involved in criminal cases is one way privacy and fair trial rights may be protected in New Zealand. Court news was not always restricted in this way: 115 years ago all parts of criminal court proceedings could be reported and media decided what information was censored. In 1905, New Zealand judges were given the power to suppress court evidence to protect public morality, and 15 years later, the power to suppress the names of certain first offenders to give them a second chance. The laws now stretch to suppressing many kinds of evidence and the identities of some people accused and convicted of New Zealand’s most serious crimes. Investigation of the 115-year-long evolution of New Zealand’s name suppression laws illuminates a piecemeal, but severe, curtailment of media freedom and a trend of imposition of increasingly complex laws which journalists must keep abreast of, understand and observe to prevent appearing before the courts themselves.
format	article
author	Francine Tyler
author_facet	Francine Tyler
author_sort	Francine Tyler
title	What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom
title_short	What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom
title_full	What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom
title_fullStr	What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom
title_full_unstemmed	What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom
title_sort	what’s in a name? a history of new zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom
publisher	Asia Pacific Network
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/96fd815eefa64b31be56fb2ead5676e9
work_keys_str_mv	AT francinetyler whatsinanameahistoryofnewzealandsuniquenamesuppressionlawsandtheirimpactonpressfreedom
_version_	1718397011053510656

What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom

Ejemplares similares