An injunction preventing the media from publishing certain details related to the investigation into Tom Phillips and his family remains in place.
Phillips died following a shootout with police after they were called to reports of a burglary in the early hours of September 8.
After Phillips’ death police said it was clear he had received help.
On September 8, lawyer Linda Clark, acting for Tom Phillips’ mother, went to the High Court in Wellington seeking an urgent injunction.
The injunction – which prevented media, police and Oranga Tamariki from publishing certain details related to the case – was granted by Justice Helen Cull.
The injunction was discussed in the High Court at Wellington on Friday.
As the hearing was in chambers, media are only permitted to report the result of the hearing.
Justice Cull said the injunction remained until further order of the court.
Family court injunction
A second injunction was granted in the Family Court in Hamilton on 15 September.
A redacted version of Judge Garry Collin’s judgement was released to RNZ.
Judge Collin said there was a “great deal of public interest in the Phillips’ children”, which he said was reflected in media reports and posts on social media.
“It is not in their short or long-term welfare that their experiences are subject to public curiosity or scrutiny.
“They should not be the subject of speculation, nor is it in their welfare and best interests that any information is released.”
He said the media and “public appetite” must be subject to the children’s right to privacy, their protection as vulnerable young victims, and their ability to integrate back into society “without everyone knowing their story”.
“Their views, and rights to participate in the making of decisions about what is written and said about them, needs to be respected. The children need to be able to do this in private, and in their own time.”
Judge Collin said the court was the “guardian of the children,” and had responsibilities “akin to those of a parent”.
“A responsible parent would resist the publication of private sensitive information unless for good reason they considered it to be advantageous.
“In the modern age, information does not disappear with time. What is published may never be removed and may follow these children throughout their lives.”
He said without the children, “there would have been no more than a passing interest in Mr Phillips”.
“This story is not about Mr Phillips but about his children. They were young children when they went in and were young children when they came out. Currently no child in New Zealand is likely to be more vulnerable than they are.”
He understood no-one in the family consented to any further information about the children being published.
Judge Collin said although there may be jurisdictional issues which were better resolved by the High Court, he made interim injunction orders.
He said there may be an issue as to whether he could grant an injunction when the High Court had already done so, or make a restraining order “on more restrictive terms” than made by the High Court.
“These are not issues I intend to deal with today because I do not have the time, and they are in my view, more rightly determined by the High Court.
“Consequently, I intend to make wide ranging restrictions on publication and leave it to the High Court to resolve any jurisdictional issues that exist when the proceedings are next called, or by way of judicial review.”
He made several orders, including an appointment of the court as the guardian of the children to remain, and an interim injunction.
The injunction included restraining anyone from the publication of any documentary, film, or book that referred to the children.
rnz.co.nz
