Mr SPEAKERHonourable members, yesterday members raised points of order about the sub judice rule. I have given consideration to the practice that has developed around the application of the rule and members’ freedom of speech.
The first issue is the time during which the rule is engaged. Standing Order 112 is very clear. The rule applies from the time a charge is laid or, in relation to cases other than criminal cases, from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate documents with the court. The rule ceases to apply when the verdict and sentence have been announced or a judgment given.
There are two strands to the way in which the Speaker applies the rule. First, reference to a matter before the court risks being prejudicial to the outcome of the case or may be unfair to those involved in the proceedings. Second, it is contrary to New Zealand’s constitutional principles.
Standing Order 111 articulates the minimum standard in respect of protecting the rights of individuals to a fair trial. The practice of the House that has evolved, though, is that the Speaker, in exercising his or her discretion under Standing Order 111, must also have regard to the comity between Parliament and the courts.
The House has set itself a high standard of restraint and respect with regard to its special constitutional relationship with the courts. What is before one ought not to be discussed or adjudicated on in the other. Parliament often asks the courts to uphold its privileges. It must be equally vigilant in defending the role of the courts.
It is important, however, that the sub judice rule does not unduly constrain members’ freedom of speech or inhibit members discussing the law in general. There is a fine balance between the competing interests of the legislative and the judicial branches of Government. Members may feel that this balance needs reconsideration. The Privileges Committee currently has before it an inquiry dealing with these very issues. I urge members to put their views to the committee. Any rebalancing of these important constitutional principles requires proper consideration in such a forum.