Rafiq v APN NZ Ltd

[2013] NZHC 733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-305 [2013] NZHC 733

BETWEEN  RAZDAN RAFIQ Appellant

ANDAPN NZ LTD Respondent

Hearing:         (On the papers) Counsel:  Appellant in person

AL Ringwood and TC Goatley for Respondent

Judgment:      12 April 2013

JUDGMENT (NO.2) OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 April 2013 at 10:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SOLICITORS

Bell Gully (Auckland) for Respondent

(Copy to Applicant in person)

RAFIQ V APN NZ LTD HC AK CIV-2013-404-305 [12 April 2013]

Introduction

[1]      Mr  Rafiq  seeks  an  order  prohibiting  publication  of  any  part  of  this proceeding. APN NZ Ltd opposes the application.

[2]      I will deal with the application on the basis of the memoranda filed by the parties. The issue is clear and an oral hearing is neither sought nor justified.

Background

[3]      On 6 November 2012, a District Court Judge struck out a claim by Mr Rafiq against APN for damages for defamation.  Mr Rafiq wished to appeal this decision but, as he was out of time, had first to gain leave.

[4]      I heard the application for leave to appeal on 20 March 2013.  I delivered my judgment later that day.[1]   I declined leave.

Discussion

[1] Rafiq v APN NZ Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2013-404-305, 20 March 2013.

[5]      The starting point in considering an application for non-publication is the presumption  that  the  work  of  the  Court  should  be  open  to  public  scrutiny. Suppression orders should be made only where the interests of justice outweigh the presumption.   Where such orders are made, they should be confined to the extent necessary to protect the identified interests.

[6]      In  this  case,  APN  published  a  short  report  of  charges  brought  against Mr Rafiq.    The  District  Court  Judge  struck  out  Mr  Rafiq’s  claim  for  damages because the report was clearly not defamatory.  In my judgment of 20 March 2013, I agreed with the District Court Judge .

[7]      Mr Rafiq’s grounds for his application are that my judgment:

(a)       “[I]s based on European racism and black and white people policy”;

and

(b)      “[I]s based on corruption and embedded with racism with poor justice

system”.

[8]      Mr Rafiq submits that publication of the proceeding should be prohibited so as to protect him from further defamation.

Decision

[9]      The  grounds  advanced  by  Mr  Rafiq,  in  a  democracy,  go  stridently  to publication rather than suppression.

[10]     The damage Mr Rafiq identifies if publication occurs (further defamation)

assumes APN’s report is defamatory.  It is not.

[11]     The application is denied.

Brewer J