Open Justice: Court reporting has improved with NZME’s funded programme but more is needed – David Harvey
Reporting the business of the courts is a core duty of the Fourth Estate. Open justice depends on the press acting for a public that cannot be in the courtroom. As one United States judge put it, the media functions as a surrogate of the public.
New Zealand’s courts, the Family Court aside, are open. Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch an arm of government at work. In practice, few do. Most lack the time, courts are scattered, and in a high-profile trial the gallery fills before the first witness is called. So the press becomes the public’s eyes and ears, though with resources that have been shrinking for two decades.
Open Justice: a partial answer
The problem has been addressed in part by Open Justice, currently an NZME public interest journalism initiative jointly funded by NZ On Air and NZME.
Open Justice was originally seeded by NZ On Air’s Public Interest Journalism Fund, but that concluded after two years.
Open Justice is shared with other media outlets RNZ, Whakaata Māori, Allied Media and Top South Media, with specialist reporters in courts from Whangārei to Christchurch.
The media partners don’t contribute funds or resourcing and take NZME copy once it goes live. In that respect, NZME is footing the bill, although there is NZ On Air funding as a contribution.
Open Justice has earned its place. A 2023 review by Dr Gavin Ellis credited it with improving public understanding of the legal system, and its coverage drew 25.6 million views in 2022/23. The question is whether, with limited funding and a large NZME contribution, it is doing the job that most needs doing.
Where the coverage falls short
Print limits content by space. Digital publication removed that constraint years ago, and much of the copy is now significantly longer and more detailed than might be seen in print.
Suppression orders are catnip, as is any case where the “establishment” is found wanting. The everyday business of the courts, where most citizens meet the justice system, goes largely unreported. To be fair, Open Justice does carry coronial, tribunal and employment decisions.
Ellis has described the spread of regional news deserts. Local papers once reported their courts in detail, naming those convicted of drink-driving and the penalties imposed. That record has largely vanished. Open Justice’s reporters are spread thin, several without a local newsroom behind them.
There are experienced court reporters, among them Eddie Gay of RNZand Craig Kapitan and Anna Leask of the Herald. But their knowledge comes from years in courtrooms, a kind of experiential osmosis, not legal training. Points that would leap out at a lawyer are too often missed. Perhaps it is time for lawyers to move into journalism, as some have in the United States.
Coverage concentrates on the District Court, where criminal cases begin, and the High Court, where the more serious criminal cases end up. Civil litigation registers only when topical or the litigants are well known. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court receive coverage, and journalists attend the Supreme Court hearings in person.
To a layperson, much appellate work looks like “lawyers’ law”. That is precisely why it needs a good reporter. Explaining why a technical point matters can be critical to understanding a case. In that respect, a new podcast, Case by Case, explains cases and court processes. One episode on sentencing was so successful it was posted on the District Court website to inform a wider public.
The courts have done their part
The courts provide a considerable amount of important information. The District Court is too busy and dispersed to publish every list, but higher up the picture changes. The Courts of New Zealand website lists upcoming High Court and Court of Appeal hearings.
The Supreme Court publishes its case list, much of the case documentation and a media summary, and livestreams its hearings. It is not dramatic television, but it is the country’s highest court in full view. The US Supreme Court, by contrast, has long resisted cameras.
Judgments are just as accessible. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal publish all their decisions online, and the High Court a large share, through the courts’ website, Judicial Decisions Online and NZLII. Selected District Court decisions are online too.
The raw material is there, much of it free and in real time. Open Justice, at least, has dedicated reporters to use it.
What good looks like: the New York Times
The US Supreme Court offers the public far less than ours. What it has instead is outstanding reporting, and none better, in my view, than the New York Times.
Take Suncor Energy v County Commissioners of Boulder County, argued on October 5, 2026. The issue was: could Boulder sue oil companies in state court for climate change damage, or does federal law shut the claim out? Justice Samuel Alito recused himself days before argument, raising the prospect of a 4–4 deadlock.
New Zealand has its own climate case, Smith v Fonterra. Its legal basis is different, but the hearing and documents are online for anyone to watch and read. How many New Zealanders have seen a serious, analytical account of the arguments?
The Times put a team on the Boulder case:
- Adam Liptak, chief legal affairs correspondent, who practised law for 14 years.
- Ann Marimow, not a lawyer, but with 12 years covering the federal courts.
- Abbie VanSickle, a law graduate and former public defender, covering the court as an institution.
- Brad Plumer and Claire Brown, climate reporters, covering the substance behind the litigation.
The result was a background piece, a live blog of the argument, and pieces on the climate stakes and Justice Alito’s recusal. Readers learned not only what was argued, but why it mattered.
The US Supreme Court obscures its proceedings, and journalism makes up the deficit. Ours opens its proceedings, but by and large citizens here must do the analysis alone and wait for the judgment to learn what it meant, although Open Justice plays a part where it can and where funds allow. Court reporting is a labour- and time-intensive operation.
Where this leaves us
New Zealand has the raw material for first-rate legal journalism. The legal profession is served by expensive databases and specialist publications; the public can reach that analysis only if it pays. The result is a two-tier system: insiders who understand what the courts are doing, and everyone else. A public without informed commentary cannot properly hold an arm of government to account.
The fix does not require new transparency from the courts. It requires the funders of Open Justice, NZ On Air in particular, to buy depth, not just volume, in the next funding round:
- Fund at least one legally trained reporter dedicated to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
- Expect previews of significant appeals, drawn from the published case files.
- Expect analysis of significant judgments: what changed, and for whom.
- Extend coverage to civil litigation and tribunals.
The NY Times shows what is possible with no cameras in the courtroom. With cameras, case files and judgments already on the table, New Zealand has fewer excuses. The data is there. What is missing are properly resourced newsrooms with qualified reporters to tell the public what it means.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.