The Judge overseeing the depositions hearings for the Urewera 17 (now 18) has ordered a blanket suppression of all proceedings. So an important part of what is potentially the most important criminal case in a decade will be conducted in total secrecy, away from the prying eyes of the media. So much for open justice.
This is highly unusual in our justice system, and it will be interesting to hear what the justification is (assuming anyone is allowed to report it). The normal reason for suppression is to preserve the right to a fair trial - but given that depositions hearings in high-profile rape and murder cases are routinely conducted in public, with full media access, it's difficult to see that standing up. And even then, suppression tends to focus on a few details - such as the names of defendants, and sometimes crucial pieces of evidence - with carte blanche for everything else. Blanket suppression requires a powerful justification to overcome the BORA's affirmation of freedom of expression - and I just don't see one here. To the contrary, I see powerful reasons for everything in this case to be done publicly, so the police can be held to account, so that we can see that the process is fair, and so that any charges which are sustained can be seen to be justified. As I pointed out in the case of Ahmed Zaoui, media access to trials is vital to main public confidence in the justice system - especially in cases like this. And if it is denied, we have no reason to have any confidence in the outcome.
Update: Stuff have updated the story, and apparently the reason is the large amount of potentially inadmissible evidence. But lots of trials have problems with dodgy evidence, and usually they rely on the passage of time to avoid poisoning the jury pool, so I'm not sure I really buy that.
