Questions

Chapter 3 – Contempt in the face of the court

Q1 Do you think that contempt in the face of the court provisions in courts legislation should separate the need to deal immediately with an in-court interruption from the process of punishing a person for that disruptive behaviour?
Q2 If so, what should the procedure be?
Q3 Do you agree that all courts should open and close with directions in both English and Māori?
Q4 Do you think judges should be encouraged to allow a short introduction/mihi whakatau or prayer/karakia by the key participants in their courts?

Chapter 4 – Reforming publication contempt

Q5 Do you think that the common law test of real risk has become problematic?
Q6 Do you have any comments to make on the proposed statutory prohibition?
Q7 Do you have any comments to make on the proposed suppression power? Should it replace the common law power of suppression?
Q8 Do you agree that the common law offence of publication contempt should be replaced with a statutory offence as we have proposed? How should the test be framed?

Chapter 5 – Jurors and contempt of court

Q9 Do you agree with our suggested approach to pretrial publicity and research by jurors?
Q10 Do you have any comments on the different options for dealing with pretrial publicity and research by jurors? Are there other options we should consider?
Q11 Do you agree that there should be a statutory offence to replace common law contempt as it applies to jurors who, notwithstanding clear unequivocal instruction, intentionally search for extraneous information?
Q12 Do you agree that the law on the disclosure of jury deliberations should be clarified and that it should be a statutory offence for anyone, including a person who is or has served on a jury, to disclose or publish details of a jury’s deliberations or for anyone to solicit such information?
Q13 What exceptions or defences should be available to allow disclosure where it is in the interests of justice because there has been some irregularity during deliberations, such as juror misconduct?
Q14 Should there be an exception to allow for academic research into juries?
Q15 Do you have any comment on the proactive management options as they relate to disclosure of information? Are there any other options we should consider?

Chapter 6 – Scandalising the court

Q16 Do you agree the common law contempt of scandalising should be abolished by statute?
Q17 Do you agree that, when passed, the Harmful Digital Communications Bill together with other existing remedies will provide sufficient protection for the judiciary?
Q18 If the common law offence of scandalising were abolished, should a new statutory offence replace it? If so, what should be the nature of that offence?

Chapter 7 – The future of civil contempt

Q19 Do you agree that all contempt should now be criminal and that civil contempt should be abolished?
Q20 What comments do you have on the proposed option in relation to civil enforcement? Should sequestration orders be abolished altogether?
Q21 What comments do you have on the proposed statutory offence?
Q22 ​Is it necessary for the courts to retain a power to imprison a litigant as a last resort to coerce compliance with a court order? What restrictions should be placed on such a power?

Chapter 8 – Replacing common law contempt with statutory offences

Q23 Do you think common law contempt of court offences should be completely abolished and replaced by statutory offences?
Q24 Should there be a new Contempt of Court Act?
Q25 If contempts were replaced with statutory offences, how should those offences be prosecuted?