adls.org.nz NEWS Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33 Inside ■ TRUSTS obligationsFiduciary clarified P06 ■ FREE SPEECH Not my King P10 Have your say on digitising COURTSTHE
Advertising enquiries to: Darrell Denney 021 936 Darrell.Denney@adls.org.nz858
published weekly (with the exception of a small period over the Christmas holiday break) and is available free of charge to members of ADLS, and available by subscription to non-members for $140 (plus GST) per year. To subscribe, please reception@adls.org.nz.email
02Contents
©COPYRIGHT and DISCLAIMER Material from this publication must not be reproduced in whole or part without permission. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and, unless stated, may not reflect the opinions or views of ADLS or its members. Responsibility for such views and for the correctness of the information within their articles lies with the authors.
LawNews is an official publication of Auckland District Law Society Inc. Editor:(ADLS).
Jenni McManus Publisher: ADLS
Long-awaited digitisation of courts kicks offFUNDINGJUSTICETECHNOLOGY 03-05 Court of Appeal clarifies fiduciary duty of trusteesFAMILYBENEFICIARIESFIDUCIARY 06 Why we are ambivalent about freedom of expressionCOUNTERSPEECHCENSORSHIPOPINION 08-09 FEATURED CPD 12-13 Cover: Hiroshi Watanabe / Getty Images Build your brand and grow your legal practice by writing for LawNews! We welcome opinion pieces and other contributions for publication in our weekly magazine. Please contact the editor to discuss: Jenni.McManus@adls.org.nz ImagesGetty/d3signPhoto:CPD IN BRIEF 14 EVENTS 11
All mail to: ADLS, Level 4, Chancery Chambers, 2 Chancery Street, Auckland 1010 PO Box 58, Shortland Street DX CP24001, Auckland 1140, LawNewsadls.org.nzis
Editorial and contributor enquiries to: Jenni021McManus971598Jenni.Mcmanus@adls.org.nz
Jenni McManus
“It’s harder to interact with the court system than it should be. It’s harder to get information about your case than it should be. All these things we can do much better. We can reduce costs, we can improve information, we can enhance participation for people in the system.”
The money is expected to cover the first phase of the program – the digitisation of the case management system –but more will be needed for other items on the to-do list.
How the digitisation of our courts will be rolled out
“I suspect some of these will require further substantial investment on top of Te Au Reka and we’ll need to talk to government about its willingness to support the improved delivery of justice,” Justice Goddard says.
“My experience of building projects is that if you tell people what you’ve put aside, they will always find a way to use it. So very deliberately that envelope isn’t public but it’s a substantial investment over the whole life of the project and not just the initial implementation but maintenance and support over the next 15 years,” he says.
In fact, under-investment is one of the major risks to the
project or, as the judge puts it, “the risk of not being willing to spend what it takes to do it well”. That’s happened in other countries, he says, when governments have tried to do it on a shoestring. “The result is that you don’t achieve your objectives.”Butthere is a strong commitment from the government to get it right after a couple of decades of under-investment in the technology needed to support the administration of justice, he says.
My experience of building projects is that if you tell people what you’ve put aside, they will always find a way to use it
03 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33
Armed with a big chunk of funding allocated in this year’s Budget, the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary are going to market to seek bids for Te Au Reka – the first phase of the long-awaited digitisation of New Zealand’s courts and tribunals.Unlike the UK, which attempted to digitise its courts in-house by using government departments, ours will be a normal commercial process. For that reason, the size of the funding package is being kept under wraps. While the Budget 2022 documents describe the purpose and expected outcomes of Te Au Reka, there is no mention of a specific dollarJusticeamount.David Goddard, who has been tasked with managing the digitisation process, makes no apologies for declining to reveal how much it will cost.
To do what we do now efficiently, we need better technology and the only way we can significantly expand access to justice is through smart use of technology.
TECHNOLOGY/ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Justice David Goddard
Continued on page 04
The same issue was raised by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Chief Justice of England and Wales, who visited New Zealand in October 2019 as part of the New Zealand Law Foundation’s Distinguished Fellow Program.
In terms of getting the message across to a wider audience, covid changed everything.
“The most widely-used technology in the courts – the case management system – is 20 years old and is no longer supported by the original vendor. It’s really clunky. We need to do something that is fit-for-purpose, that is properly built and continues to be properly supported.”
“We got more comfortable with technology. Even the judges who were suspicious of it have been forced to use it and [now] realised that some things are done better with it,” Justice Goddard says.
Continued from page 03
Covid also began to wean court users off their traditional paper-based systems. Within weeks of the first lockdown, the beginnings of an online filing system were up and running,
“So, I think one of the biggest risks is that it’s not sufficiently focused on users and the way to reduce that risk is really rolling up our sleeves and getting involved.”
Asked whether he put his hand up to manage the project or was co-opted with one of those offers one cannot refuse, Justice Goddard says it was probably a bit of both.
Buy-in from both the legal profession and the public is essential if digitisation is to work. A consultation document was released earlier this month and feedback is due by Friday 30 September.“Thejudiciary is more involved in this technology project than they have been. For the first time, [they have] developed their own digital strategy and how it should be designed,” Justice Goddard says. “We are going to invest quite a lot of judge-time in making sure that design meets our understanding of what the court system is and where it should“There’sgo.” the risk that if users are not sufficiently engaged with the design, it doesn’t work as well as it ought to in practice. In some countries I visited, the design has been very much led by technology people and when it’s landed in the courts it hasn’t worked very well for parties, for the lawyers or for the judges.
Roped in?
“If you don’t give ordinary people a method of enforcing claims or complaints about things that have gone wrong or to deal with their rights, you are alienating them from the legal system and you are fundamentally undermining the rule of law,” Lord Thomas said.
He built his first computer from components at the age of 16 and, while also in his teens, wrote software for a family friend in the film industry “which produced royalties”. His first degree was in maths.
Later, at Chapman Tripp, he was the technology partner and led the firm’s move to networked desktop PCs. As a judge, he was invited onto several technology-related committees.Hisnewrole, Justice Goddard says, is “a mix of sort-of volunteering and being invited to do it”, arising from a longstanding interest in technology and how it can help those in the legal world do things better.
We’ve known for a long time that we needed to do better with technology and the judiciary has been anxious to do more about digitising the courts
meaning people no longer had to front-up at the counter with hardBut,copies.asJustice Goddard points out, while court users can create PDFs and upload their documents, most have to print, scan and email them. To date, there is no provision for filing online. And there is no way participants in a hearing can log in, view the documents in their case file and track hearing dates and deadlines. While Te Au Reka will address this problem, there is still a long way to go.
“To do what we do now efficiently, we need better technology and the only way we can significantly expand access to justice is through smart use of technology.
Access to justice
Technology and the move to online courts were critical to making justice more affordable to “ordinary” people, Lord Thomas said
Investment in technology is “extraordinarily expensive” but the rule of law is at risk if ordinary individuals cannot enforce their rights on issues that matter to them.
“We’ve known for a long time that we needed to do better with technology and the judiciary has been anxious to do more about digitising the courts. We just haven’t had the
“For example, [take] a short procedural hearing with people scattered throughout New Zealand. To make everyone come to one place is terribly inefficient and creates cost and access-to-justice barriers. Doing things like that with technology is a no-brainer.”
Covid changes
“If you ask, ‘how can we really meet justice needs of the very large proportion of New Zealanders who can't afford to access our courts and tribunal’? the reality is that the only way we can do that is by appropriate use of technology.”
The judge himself is a firm believer in the project’s value. As he sees it, without substantial investment in technology and digitisation of the courts and court processes, it’s difficult to see how access to justice can be improved.
04 Continued on page 05
During covid, he says, “it became clear that not only could we work with technology, but our current technology wasn’t fit-for-purpose”. And while change might create all sorts of risk, “it seems to me that there are all sorts of risk with our current systems – paper, with a veneer of technology, a lot of it outdated, over the top”.
Continued from page 04
05 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33
Sweet spot
“To paraphrase Lord Rutherford, we don’t have much money, so we have to think. We’re not going to have £1.3 billion to spend on digitising our courts. We will have significant investment but we’re going to have to do it really smartly.“Ithink this is an amazing opportunity for the judiciary to lead some change in the way we administer justice to make the process more responsive. To do that we need to work closely with the ministry. The relationship is healthy and working really well.”
To read the consultation document, click here ■
It’s harder to interact with the court system than it should be. It’s harder to get information about your case than it should be
resources to do so. The technology we’ve been using has been getting older and older and wobblier and wobblier.”
Remote court hearings, another necessity during covid, are here to stay. But, again, the technology is not fit-forpurpose and, like case management, is part of the five-year plan for change. The system is being reviewed: the software won’t be a problem, Justice Goddard says, but dealing with the hardware in every court in New Zealand will be timeconsuming.Livestreamed court hearings are a different matter. The Supreme Court is already doing them but while some cases in other courts might be suitable, there are obvious problems with issues like name suppression.
“The important thing for me is that a few things have come together to make this happen now and to make it timely – that is, the experience of using technology during covid which has given us more of a sense of what might be possible, it’s the willingness of the government to invest significantly in court technology through Te Au Reka and it’s a really good level of collaboration between the judiciary and the ministry to try to improve how the courts work by making smart use of technology,” Justice Goddard says.
Right now, it seems, the stars are aligned.
R’s transfer of his assets to a trust and his failure to provide for his children in his will meant that when R died, his children were effectively prevented from inheriting from his estate or from making a meaningful Family Protection Act 1955 claim
R’s children claimed that he owed them fiduciary duties as their father and that he had breached those duties by his abuse of them and by his transfer of his assets to the trust to prevent his children making a meaningful claim under the Family Protection Act 1955.
06 Sacha Jugum
D and E Limited as trustees of the Z Trust v A, B and C [2022] NZCA 430 (Kós P, Gilbert and Collins JJ)
Sacha Jugum
R’s transfer of his assets to a trust and his failure to provide for his children in his will meant that when R died, his children were effectively prevented from inheriting from his estate or from making a meaningful Family Protection Act 1955 claim unless the property transferred to the trust reverted to R’s personal estate.
principles – extensive analysis and review of the legal options available to R’s children (the eldest of whom was born in 1960 and the youngest in 1971) including discussion of the family dynamics, the advent of the Accident Compensation Act 1972 (which came into force in 1974) and the civil claims available to persons prior to that time, the understandable reasons why criminal complaints may not have been pursued and the position of children as adults, including comprehensive discussion by all three learned Judges of the concept, existence and extent of fiduciary duties within the family unit and more generally – detailed consideration of the scope of fiduciary duties with wide-ranging extensive reference to case law, both in New Zealand and overseas – “trust and confidence” –characteristics of a fiduciary relationship – extent of distinction between young children and adult children and the nature of the fiduciary relationship
This Court of Appeal decision considers several legal issues surrounding a father’s (R’s) transfer of much of his assets to a trust of which his four children were not beneficiaries [one adult child had earlier passed away, and his estate was not involved in these proceedings].
Held: the trustees’ appeal is allowed; there was no fiduciary duty held by R towards his children at time of the disputed disposition of property to the trust (majority decision; Collins J dissented; see paras 1-119 of the decision for dissenting judgment).
Sacha Jugum is a senior solicitor at Brookfields and editor of The Bulletin ■
■
Court of Appeal rules in favour of trustees in fiduciary duty claim
R had denied the abuse when confronted about it during his lifetime. However, the High Court found R’s children to have
given evidence “honestly and accurately” about the abuse each of them had suffered and when A was an adult, her situation had been accepted for ACC cover by the ACC Sensitive Claims Unit.
R’s children also claimed those fiduciary duties were visited upon the surviving trustees. R’s children were successful in their claims in the High Court where the court held [in summary] that at the time of the disposition to the trust, the relationship between R and his children carried particular fiduciary obligations and that the assets held by the trust were held on constructive trust for R’s children. The surviving trustees of the trust now appeal that High Court decision to the Court of Appeal.Applicable
R’s previous wills demonstrated he had provided for all his children to some degree in those earlier wills, although his last will did not include his children as beneficiaries.
Equity – trust law – fiduciary duties – appeal by trustees of High Court decision that granted adult children’s claim against a trust settled by their father – disputed disposition to trust – “unwinding” the disposition to the trust –applicable principles – procedure – whether fiduciary duties owed by parent to child – whether breach of fiduciary duties – abusive childhood and family life – whether constructive trust – Family Protection Act 1955 – precedent – appeal by trustees allowed; no fiduciary duty held by father at time of disputed disposition (majority decision)
All three of R’s surviving children claimed R had been abusive to them, with R’s daughter A in particular suffering significant ongoing health, emotional and personal issues from the “egregious”, serious and long-term sexual abuse she had endured as a young child.
CASE NOTE
CPD Programme Developer
Experienced Senior/Intermediate Crown Prosecutor
• Maintain high standards and strive for excellence;
• Work efficiently, have excellent time management and organisation skills;
We are looking for those who:
ADLS is looking for an experienced lawyer with 3-4 years’ PQE to initiate, plan, and execute CPD programmes for the legal industry. Based in Auckland, this is an exciting opportunity for someone who is commercially astute and is interested in advancing how CPD programmes can be delivered in a way that engages and increases Theparticipation.rolewillsuit someone who can quickly establish credibility with key stakeholders and maintain strong professional relationships. If interested, please send a cover letter and your CV to krystal.marshall@adls.org.nz
07 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33
• Work efficiently, have excellent time management and organisation skills;
• Are resilient and able to relate well to all people within our diverse community and supports a transformational criminal justice system.
• Are resilient and able to relate well to all people within our diverse community and supports a transformational criminal justice system.
Attractive annual remuneration will be offered and relocation contributions are also available.
The opportunities available with the Crown Solicitor’s firm, Pollett Legal are vast and unique in providing for those who have a strong desire for advocacy and seek a career in all aspects of criminal Tauranga,litigation. and surrounding regions, have grown beyond measure over past years and offer all the hallmarks to create a balanced lifestyle in one of the most beautiful parts of Aotearoa.
Twitter deal edges towards court Twitter shareholders have agreed overwhelmingly in favour of Elon Musk’s troubled US$44 billion takeover bid for the company. The vote came just days after Musk’s latest salvo – a letter to Twitter, demanding termination of the deal on grounds that a US$7.75 million severance payment to the company’s former head of security violated the acquisition contract. Twitter has described Musk’s attempt to wriggle out of the deal as “invalid and wrongful”. Musk first raised problems in July when he claimed Twitter had violated the takeover agreement by misrepresenting the number of fake accounts (bots) on its platform. Twitter has sued Musk for completion of the contract and the two parties will meet in court on 17 Musk’sOctober.deal
• Maintain high standards and strive for excellence;
values Twitter at $US54.26 per share. Currently it is trading 25% below that figure. ■
• Have litigation experience including the conduct of proceedings in the High and District Courts;
• Wish to continue to develop their advocacy skills;
The Crown Solicitor and her team pride themselves on excellence in the conduct of Crown prosecutions in the Eastern and Western Bay of ThePlenty.firm also provides legal services to the New Zealand Police and other government departments and agencies. A core value for the firm is its recognition, understanding and support of diversity in our region particularly in recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its practice.
ADLS operates flexible working arrangements. Applications close Friday 23 September 2022.
• Have a desire to develop into an effective and fair advocate;
Please forward your covering letter with an up-to-date CV to Rowena Brown via email on rbrown@pll.nz. Alternatively, you may contact the Crown Solicitor, Anna Pollett direct on 021 114 2118 or via email apollett@pll.nz for a confidential discussion.
ADLS: Careers
We are looking for those who:
Junior Crown Prosecutor
The Crown Solicitor in Tauranga is seeking applications for the following positions: Experienced Senior/Intermediate Crown Prosecutors; and Junior Crown Prosecutors.
• Have some experience in litigation (1-3 years’ PQE), preferably in the criminal law or as a Judge’s clerk;
Briefs
Censoring speech because it is disfavoured, no matter how deeply, violates the viewpoint neutrality principle. That principle is also violated when the State suppresses speech about public issues. This can include “hate speech” simply because its views might have a disturbing impact upon the emotions or psyches of some audience members. The State may not punish “hate speech” or speech with other messages simply because of its offensive, discomforting, disfavoured, disturbing or feared message.
This could be called the “harmful tendency” test. This test allowed the State to punish speech that contained ideas it opposed or did not favour. That included speech that criticised government policies or officials.
Is the answer to something with which we disagree to complain to the authorities or try to shut it down?
Under this test, the State could punish speech only when it poses an emergency – that is, when it directly, demonstrably and
08
One of expressionfreedomfacingdifficultiestheof in New Zealand lies in pandemicofthegeneratedfearclimatetheofthathasoverperiodthecovid
Indeed, there seems to be a shift towards banning or censoring some manifestations of expression. In this piece I outline the approach that should be adopted to controversial speech and the rare circumstances in which censorship – an extreme remedy –should be contemplated.
This is known as “content or viewpoint neutrality”. This approach prevents the State from regulating speech simply because the speech’s message, idea or viewpoint is unpleasant, discomforting, offensive, disfavoured or feared to be dangerous by government officials or community members.
Are we becoming too precious about taking offence?
David Harvey
Counterspeech counters or responds to speech with a message that the speaker rejects. Counterspeech may address various audiences, including the speaker and those who share the speaker’s views, the people whom the speech disparages and the general public.Itmay include denunciations and refutations of the message. It may provide support for persons who the speech disparages. It may include information that seeks to alter the views of the speaker and those who may be sympathetic to those views. If speech does not satisfy the emergency test, the proper response is counterspeech.
Continued on page 09
Counterspeech is available to address such messages. Only when the speech crosses the threshold into the emergency test –that is, when it directly, demonstrably and imminently causes certain specific, objectively ascertainable serious harms that cannot be averted by other than censorship – may the State intervene.
The approach
There are two major principles that must guide an assessment of whether an expression should be stifled, censored or punished. These are known as the emergency and viewpoint neutrality principles. They have developed in the United States but can operate as useful guidelines for an approach to applying the freedom of expression guarantees in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The “harmful tendency” approach was rejected by the US Supreme Court in the early 20th century. It was replaced by a stricter test known as the “emergency” test.
imminently causes certain specific, objectively ascertainable serious harms that cannot be averted other than by censorship. One of those other ways is by what has been described as “counterspeech”.
That approach – what could be called “viewpoint discriminatory” regulation – would attack individual liberty but also democratic principles. Officials could use it to suppress unpopular idea or information or manipulate public debate.
As freedom of expression jurisprudence developed in the United States of America, the Supreme Court held that a government could punish speech based on a feared “bad” or “harmful” tendency. This was based on a vague, general fear that the speech might indirectly contribute to some possible harm at some indefinite future time.
Hate speech
OPINION
The approach I have developed owes much to the material in Professor Nadine Strossen’s excellent book Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech Not Censorship
I referred to “hate speech” in the preceding paragraph. I have put it
There seems to be an ambivalence in New Zealand about freedom of expression.Althoughthe right to communicate and receive information is guaranteed by s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the exercise of that right in certain circumstances is questioned.
David Harvey
Speech should not be the subject of State interference solely because the message is unpleasant, discomforting, disfavoured or feared to be dangerous by the State.
In Wanaka, the investigation involved a red flag with a white circle. Inside the circle was a three-pointed icon. What could this have been? Some far-right white supremacist coven, perhaps? It was reported as a racist flag. But no. The flag in fact was a Klingon battle flag from the TV series Star Trek. The police investigated, nevertheless.
The second flag to be investigated was a little more confrontational. A flag was flying from a dwelling bearing the insignia of the gang Black Power, along with the iconic clenched fist salute. It was what was written below the salute that caused concern. It was the “N” word but instead of ending “er” it just ended with “a”.
The reason that is advanced for failing to engage with the issue is that to do so merely gives oxygen to a contrary point of view. But only by discussion and challenge can the holders of contrary views understand and perhaps even accept they are wrong.
■ Continued from page 08
David Harvey is a retired District Court judge
The declaring of material to be objectionable under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 leans towards a harmful tendency test.
Material may be objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.
09 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33
Climate of fear
We need to be more robust in the way we deal with views with which we disagree. We must remember that those expressing such views have as much right to express their sentiments as we have to express ours.
The Classification Office is careful to ensure its determinations fall within the ambit of the categories expressed in the definition of objectionable.
It is not speech that the listener hates to hear. Only when the speech crosses the threshold and satisfies the emergency test should the State intervene. It is for that reason that I prefer to refer to such speech as dangerous speech because it poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm.
Recently, however, there have been a couple of examples where political expression – albeit abhorrent – has been classified as objectionable. However, unless the level of abhorrence comes within the statute, it can be addressed by counterspeech.
And we must remember that the only time speech should be censored is if there is a clear, immediate and present danger that it may cause harm.
in quotation marks because the term lacks specificity of meaning.
Some elements of the media demonise contrary opinions and there seems to be a developing trend to silence or cancel opposing points of view simply because they are perceived to be disagreeable or offensive, rather than engaging with the issue.
■
Chilling and concerning
So concerned were the police that they referred the flag to the censor in an effort to have it declared objectionable. Quite properly, the application was refused.
Infodemic – Challenging Misinformation in Aotearoa
Rather than addressing the problem with counterspeech or some such similar demonstration, citizens required the police to investigate incidents involving the flying of flags.
One of the difficulties facing freedom of expression in New Zealand lies in the climate of fear that has generated over the period of the covid pandemic. There has been fear about the consequences of the disease, fear if the various directives of the government are not complied with and fear arising from the expression of contraryAnti-vaxviews.sentiments have morphed into anti-government protests and those who express contrarian views have been accused of spreading misinformation and disinformation.Alltheseviews are in the main disfavoured, disturbing or adding to the climate of fear, so much so that the former chief censor lent the weight of his office to a publication about misinformation and disinformation entitled The Edge of the
In New Zealand we have several State interventions around speech regulation. These can be found in the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 and the various sections of the Crimes Act 1961 and the Summary Offences Act 1981 dealing with threatening language or behaviour.
A recent demonstration of the overreaction of the public to forms of expression, the rise of the harmful tendency approach and the belief that the State should intervene is chilling and concerning.
One wonders whether the chief censor of the time wished to see misinformation come within his ambit and be subject to classification or even being classed as objectionable. It is difficult to see how misinformation or disinformation could fall within the emergency test. Although it may be disfavoured, wrong-headed or disturbing it falls within the scope of viewpoint neutrality, best met with counterspeech.
Although these cases may seem insignificant or trivial in themselves, there is a deeper level of concern. Are we becoming too precious about taking offence? Are we leaning towards a “harmful tendency” position? Is the answer to something with which we disagree to complain to the authorities or try to shut it down? That is not what freedom of expression in a democratic society is all about.
That these sentiments seem to be surfacing should be no surprise. The government holds itself out as the sole source of truth and any disagreement is cast as misinformation or disinformation.
This definition suggests the particular publication may be injurious to the public good, not as an imminent threat but at some indefinite future time.
If the ideas that are the subject of speech are controversial, offensive or disfavoured, the remedy lies in debate or persuasion and not the intervention of the State.
Its generally understood core meaning is speech that expresses hateful or discriminatory views about certain groups that historically have been subject to discrimination such as people of colour, Jews, Muslims, women and LGBTQ persons, or about certain characteristics that have been the basis for discrimination such as race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.
Some of these pieces of legislation provide examples of the emergency test in action. For the provisions of the Harmful Digital Communications Act to be engaged, serious emotional distress (harm) must be suffered. Criminal penalties are attracted if the person posting the digital material has the requisite intention to post the material with the associated intention of causing serious emotional distress. Thus, actual harm is an element that engages legislative intervention. Mere offence or disfavour is not sufficient.
The only standardnotmourningpublicemergency.insuppressedlawfullysentimentanti-monarchywaycanbeisastateofAperiodofdoesmeetthat Continued on page 15
There’s some protection for speech in the legislation because people arrested under this provision can argue a defence of “reasonable excuse”. However, there’s still a great deal of discretion placed in the hands of the police.
For instance, a protestor who holds a placard saying “Not my king, abolish the monarchy” may be seen as likely to cause distress to others, given the high sensitivities in the community during the period of mourning.
There were also cohorts that wished to express discontent and disagreement with the monarchy. For instance, groups such as indigenous peoples and others who were subject to dispossession and oppression by the British monarchy may wish to express important political views about these significant and continuing injustices
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
There were strong sentiments in favour of showing respect for the Queen’s death. Some people wished to do this privately. Others wanted to demonstrate their respect publicly by attending commemorations and processions.
■ display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive.
The offence provision then provides that this must be “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” by those acts.
■ they use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
10
Various laws regulate protest in the UK. At a basic level, police can arrest a person for a “breach of the peace”.
Not my King: do we have the right to protest the monarchy at a time of mourning?
The law
This has caused tension across the globe. For instance, a professor from the United States who tweeted a critical comment of the Queen has been subject to significant public backlash. Also, an Aboriginal rugby league player is facing a ban and a fine by the NRL for similar negative comments she posted online following the Queen’s death.
Also, two statutes provide specific offences that allow police to arrest protestors.
But should such concerns about the actions of the queen and monarchy be silenced or limited because a public declaration of mourning has been made by the government?
A right to protest?
During the period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, public sensitivities in the United Kingdom was high.
Maria O’Sullivan
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 UK provides that a person is guilty of a public order offence if:
In the context of the period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, the wide terms used in this legislation (such as “nuisance” and “distress”) gives a lot of discretion to police to arrest protestors who they perceive to be upsetting others.
Protest rights are recognised in both the UK and in Australia, but in different ways.
Another statute that was recently amended is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022, which allows police to arrest protestors for “public nuisance”.
This tension has been particularly so in the UK, where police have questioned protestors expressing anti-monarchy sentiments and in some cases arrested them
This raises some difficult questions as to how the freedom of speech of both those who wish to grieve publicly and those who wish to protest should be balanced.
Wellington express lawyers’ lunch
Flamingo Joe’s Bar & Eatery, 1/10 Waterloo Quay, Pipitea, Wellington
Learn more Events ImagesGetty/nazar_abPhoto: Learn more Learn more
Connecting
12.30pm – 2pm
The Northern Club, 19 Princes Street, Auckland CBD
6pm – 9.30pm
Wednesday 19 October
6pm – 10pm
The Northern Club, 19 Princes Street, Auckland CBD
Arthur Young’s Retirement Dinner
Thursday 20 October
Wednesday 2 November
Featured events New Zealand lawyers
11 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33 November Thursday 3 | New Plymouth sundowner Thursday 24 | Hamilton sundowner December Friday 2 | Annual breakfast with the Attorney-General Wednesday 7 | Northland lawyers’ lunch Thursday 8 | East Auckland lawyers’ lunch Upcoming Book events@adls.org.nzHere adls.org.nz
Immigration dinner with the Minister of Immigration
New SocietiesIncorporatedAct
FINAL NOTICE
SEMINARCRIMINAL
Tuesday 27 September
12 FEATURED CPD
Workshop 2 CPD hrs
WORKSHOPPRESENTING
Facilitators Johnny Quinn, Audience Alive and Wayne Christensen
Livestream | In Person
Price from $130 +GST
FINAL NOTICE
Price from $300 +GST
ALL-LEVELS
Wednesday 28 September
ALL-LEVELS
Presenters Sir Ron Young, chairperson NZ Parole Board and Emma Priest, barrister, Blackstone Chambers
FIND OUT MORE
2 CPD hrs Tuesday 27 September 4pm – 6.15pm
SEMINARCOMMERCIAL
Presentation skills series
POSTPONED
9am – 11.15am
Persuading the parole board
This seminar will provide an update on the new Incorporated Societies Act 2022 and will include practical scenarios from those at the coalface.
You have been instructed to appear for an offender in prison who is eligible to be considered for parole. Where do you start? A practical guide to Parole Board hearing preparation with the chairperson of the NZ Parole Board.
The first of this three part series is a practical workshop developed by experts and designed to increase your basic knowledge about delivering effective presentations and teach new skills and techniques.
Chair Marie Dyhrberg KC
1.5 CPD hours
LIVESTREAMIN
ALL-LEVELS
4.30pm – 6pm
Presenters Mark von Dadelszen, barrister and Joanna Pidgeon, director, Pidgeon Judd
FIND OUT MORE PERSON
Price from $100 +GST
Livestream | In Person
Wednesday 19 October
13 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33
SEMINARCRIMINAL Making restorative justice work
In Person workshop
4pm – 6.15pm
3.5 CPD hrs
9am – 12.45pm
Price from $140 +GST
Presenters Samira Taghavi, Helen Bowen, Trevor Slater, Colin Rose and Jean Staples
inEffectivenesstheERA
Practical insights and advice on effectively representing your client in the Employment Relations Authority and tips on the advocacy skills needed to get the best outcome.
SEMINAREMPLOYMENT
Livestream | In Person 2 CPD hrs
Price from $130 +GST
PPPR ProceedingsAct
FIND OUT MORE
FIND OUT MORE
ALL-LEVELS
ALL-LEVELS
Chair Judge Phil Recordon
adls.org.nz/cpd cpd@adls.org.nz 09 303 5278
WORKSHOPPPPR
Livestream | In Person 2 CPD hrs
Facilitators Theresa Donnelly, legal services manager, Perpetual Guardian and Alan Gluestein, barrister, Wyndham Chambers
ALL-LEVELS
Thursday 29 September
FINAL NOTICE
Don’t approach restorative justice as just another box you need to tick to proceed through the criminal justice system. Benefit from practical insights into how you can make the most of the restorative justice process and how it can serve the needs of all parties.
LIVESTREAMIN PERSON
Video guest Dr Jane Casey, consultant psychiatrist and psychogeriatrician
Presenters Vicki Campbell, barrister, Equilibrium Legal; James Crichton, barrister, Three60 Consult and Anthony Drake, partner, Wynn Williams
4pm – 6.15pm
This workshop is designed for experienced and inexperienced lawyers working with the PPPR Act. A practical session, it will focus on proceedings, capacity assessment issues and the philosophy underlying the legislation.
Tuesday 18 October
Limited spaces available.
Health and safety case update
Pitfalls businesswithsales
Presenters Shane Hussey, director and principal, Hussey & Co and Sian Heppleston, analyst, Hussey & Co
4pm – 6.15pm
Price from $140 +GST
In Person | Livestream
Presenters Joseph Lill, senior associate, Chapman Tripp; Grant Nicholson, partner, Anthony Harper and Angus Everett, senior solicitor, WorkSafe
Thursday 10 November
LIVESTREAMIN PERSON LIVESTREAMIN PERSON
FIND OUT MORE
4 CPD hrs
Tuesday 8 November
Whether it is the sale of a business, the transfer of a business as part of a relationship property settlement or the execution of an estate, there are pitfalls when advising on transactions which lead to the sale of all, or part of, an interest in a business and which impact on the value of a business. Learn how to avoid these issues.
Presenters Margaret Casey KC, Ewan Eggleston, Isaac Hikaka, Jennie Hawker, Calina Tataru, Inger Blackford, Zandra Wackenier and Duncan Holmes
Thursday 20 October
In Person | Livestream
conferencefamilyInternationallaw
Price from $80 +GST
Get up-to-speed with recent and key workplace health and safety case law. This webinar will summarise recent noteworthy cases and current trends and covers pre-trial applications, defended hearings and penalties.
Increasingly, family law matters involve one or more international issues. This conference will explore the key areas of property, maintenance and parenting. The focus will be on trans-Tasman proceedings and with insights into other jurisdictions.
9am – 1.15pm
Workshop (online)
FIND OUT MORE
This distilled leadership development program will give participants a range of practical leadership insights, behaviours and tools. Framed in contemporary leadership best practice where the primary role of a leader is to empower people to perform and grow, this is an engaging and sometimes challenging leadership development experience.
14 CPD IN BRIEF
Price from $400 +GST
9.15am – 4pm
2 CPD hrs
12pm – 1pm
5.75 CPD hrs
Leading in law series
Facilitator Tony Gardner, managing director, Archetype Leadership + Teams
Chair Simon Jefferson KC
Tuesday 25 October
Webinar 1 CPD hr
Price from $480 +GST
Partnership Law - Pointers, Problems & Pro-tips Tuesday 15 November | Webinar | 1 CPD hour Visit adls.org.nz for more information.
Freedom of expression is also recognised in the three jurisdictions in Australia that have human rights instruments (Victoria, Queensland and the ACT).
The only way anti-monarchy sentiment can lawfully be suppressed is in a state of emergency. A public period of mourning does not meet that standard.
It may be uncomfortable or even distressing for those wishing to publicly grieve the Queen’s passing to see antimonarchy placards displayed. But that doesn’t make it a criminal offence that allows protestors to be arrested.
The ability to voice dissent is vital for a functioning democracy. It’s therefore arguable that people should be able to voice their concerns with the monarchy even in this period of heightened sensitivity.
15 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33
In this period of public mourning, people wishing to assemble in a public place to pay respect to the Queen are exercising two primary human rights: the right to assembly and the right to freedom of expression. But these aren’t absolute rights. They cannot override the rights of others to also express their own Further,views.there’s no recognised right to assemble without annoyance or disturbance from others. That is, others in the community are also permitted to gather in a public place during the period of mourning and voice their views, which may be critical of the Queen or monarchy.
Maria O’Sullivan is Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, and Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University ■
In Australia, there’s no equivalent of the right to freedom of expression at the federal level as Australia doesn’t have a national human rights charter. Rather, there’s a constitutional principle called the “implied freedom of political communication”. This isn’t a “right” as such but does provide some acknowledgement of the importance of protest.
The police in the UK and Australia cannot therefore use public order offences (such breach of the peace) to unlawfully limit public criticism of the monarchy.
The above first appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission ■
It’s important to note that neither the UK nor Australia protects the monarchy against criticism. This is significant because in some countries (such as Thailand), it’s a criminal offence to insult the monarch. These are called “lèse-majesté” laws – a French term meaning “to do wrong to majesty”.
Continued from page 10This balancedprotestthosepubliclywishbothofhowquestionssomeraisesdifficultastothefreedomspeechofthosewhotogrieveandwhowishtoshouldbe
In the UK, the right to freedom of expression is recognised in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
• Aged 85 / Died 12’08’22
GILMER Bernard Eugene
• Aged 53 / Died 01’12’20
• An ability to work both collaboratively and independently however supervision is available to enhance your experience.
Call our advertising executive, Darrell Denney, on 021 936 858 or email Darrell on Darrell.denney@adls.org.nz
To be appointed as a coroner you must have held a practising certificate as a barrister or solicitor for at least five years.
• Excellent verbal and written communication skills
• Only private clientele, no legal aid clients.
• 4 weeks’ annual leave + ongoing professional development
• An ability to manage and develop excellent client relationships
WILL INQUIRIES
• Retired
LawNews reaches a discerning audience of nearly 6000 lawyers, judges, politicians and academics every week.
Please forward your CV to chantal@lawassociates.co.nz
You will build on your experience negotiating and drafting relationship property agreements, running contested relationship property files, COCA and DV matters.
• Late of 96 Pupuke Road, Hillcrest, Auckland
• Aged 56 / Died 14’08’22
• Aged 82 / Died 03’08’22
• Retired
• Married
• Late of 80 Stirling Drive, Morrinsville
• Flexible working hours
reception@adls.org.nz ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street, DX CP24001, Auckland 1140 Fax: (09) 309 3726 (09) 303 5270
The position description and expression of interest forms are available from the Ministry of Justice website here Closing date for expressions of interest is 28 September 2022
• Late of Auckland
Auckland, Palmerston North and Wellington
• Enjoy an easy commute and skip the traffic to the city
CORONERS
Ideally you will have:
LENG Youbo
• Married
• Company director
16
• Late of 15/43 Fruitvale Road, New Lynn, Auckland
• Aged 82 / Died 04’09’22
This space could be yours
Expressions of interest are invited from persons wishing to be considered for appointment as a coroner under section 103 of the Coroners Act 2006. Appointments are being considered for the Auckland, Palmerston North and Wellington regions.
• Housewife
Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise ADLS if you hold a will or testamentary disposition for any of the following people. If you do not reply within three weeks it will be assumed you do not hold or have never held such a document
ANTUNOVICH Davor (aka Davor Antunovic & Davor Antunović)
• Payroll clerk
• Previously of 27 Cotswold Lane, Penrose, Auckland
• Family-friendly atmosphere
PATEL Rashilaben (aka Rashila Patel)
We have a vacancy for a talented family lawyer. Ideally you have a passion for family law and the ability to relate well to a wide range of people.
HEALY Graeme Leslie
• Competitive remuneration and free onsite parking
• Married
Get your message in front of them.
• Late of 157 Edgewater Drive, Pakuranga, Auckland
We offer the following:
LawNews: The no-hassle way to source missing wills for $80.50 (GST Included)
• Be part of a well-supported team where there is flexibility in the role
The role is an exciting opportunity for a family lawyer looking for the next step in their career who enjoys working in a small busy team environment and is willing to build relationships with existing clients and other practitioners and contribute to the growth of the practice. The role could suit someone returning to the workforce.
• Aged 85 / Died on or about 08’05’20
• Late of 30A James Laurie Street, Henderson, Auckland
LIN Hui Lan
17 Sep 23, 2022 Issue 33 The New Incorporated Societies Act – What is new, and what can lawyers offer? Tuesday 27 September | 4pm - 6.15pm | Livestream | In Person This seminar will provide an update on the new Incorporated Societies Act 2022 and will include practical scenarios from those at the coalface. T 09 303 5278 E cpd@adls.org.nz W adls.org.nz/cpd 2 HOURSCPD The ADLS Bookstore couriers nationwide. Or, browse in person at: The ADLS Bookstore Ground Auckland2ChanceryFloorChambersChanceryStreetCBD A one-stop-shopconvenient, for all your legal Bookstoreresources ADLS members, including student members, receive a 10% discount Phone: 09 303 5270 Email: thestore@adls.org.nz Visit the online bookstore: adls.org.nz/bookstore
