marfat et prieur

Today the Supreme Court rejected a vexatious leave to appeal an Appeal Court decision bought by Alain Marfat and Dominique Prieur to prevent TVNZ from screening footage they recorded of the pair pleading guilty to the manslaughter of Fernando Pereira. The Supreme Court in delivering its verdict was very unimpressed in the appeal, summarising that

We have not been satisfied that this is a proper case to be heard by this Court, directed as it is to a discretionary decision which has already been reviewed and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The decision below turned upon a balancing exercise that involved the application of settled criteria to the particular facts. This is a very unusual case, which, an appeal on the merits having been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal, no longer raises any question of general or public importance. We are satisfied that we would not be assisted on the question of leave by having an oral hearing. We are also far from persuaded that the Courts below have erred in their assessment, let alone that it is arguable that they were plainly wrong.

Which is the correct decision. That someone who has pleaded guilty to manslaughter (and being responsible for the attempted murder of 11 others, not to mention terrorism) can claim any rights to privacy is idiocy. I'd accept their augment if they were innocent - but to commit an act of espionage against a country whose only crime was to allow freedom of expression of its citizens and visitors is reprehensible. The pair - while possibly being only accessories to the crime - served only 2 years out of a 17 year sentence thanks to a UN negotiated release.

They got off light.

The least they can do is stop complaining. Ultimately Marfat or Prieur were not responsible for the decision to attack the Rainbow Warrior, but their Government. Their ludicrous action formed part of our history, and that is the most important reason why we should see those tapes.

The Supreme Court was right in dismissing the leave to appeal, which I feel is an example of the robustness of the newly formed institution. It's fantastic that their cases and decisions are available for anyone who cares to look. To have the Privy Council decide cases of national importance for New Zealand is silly today. I'm glad that they're getting a new building, and pleased that the plans are to create an impressive building to serve as the symbol of the institution as in other countries.