Criminal disclosure — application for access to court documents — “criminal proceedings” — fair-trial rights — Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, ss 13(2), 13(5) & 16 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 4A, 37, 38, 208, 209, 246, 271, 276, 276AC, 283, 426 & 438 — District Court Act 2016, s 9 — Sentencing Act 2002, s 24 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 376 — District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, rr 6, 8, 11, 12 & 13 — Oranga Tamariki Rules 1989, rr 2, 8, 9, sch 1AA — Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, rr 6, 7 & 8 — Criminal Proceedings (Search of Court Records) Rules 1974 — UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, arts 16 & 40 — Law Commission, Access to Court Records (NZLC R93, 2006) — The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules) 1985, rr 8.1 & 8.2 — Crimson Consulting Ltd v Berry [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZAR 30 — New Zealand Police v BH YC Lower Hutt CRI-2008-232-000018, 18 June 2008 — Kohere v Police (1994) 11 CRNZ 442. The young person had previously been sentenced on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The victim in the wounding charge (the victim) had complained to the police about violence and firearms-related incidents allegedly committed by the young person's partner (the partner) The young person then attacked the victim in revenge. The partner now faced trial on the incidents that the victim had complained of to the police. The Crown solicitor (the Crown), who was prosecuting the partner, applied for disclosure of both the summary of facts that the young person had accepted for the purpose of sentencing, and for notes from a Family Group Conference (FGC) at which the young person had admitted the offending. The Crown argued that it was obligated to disclose the information to the partner's counsel, and also that the information would help to establish the facts in the charge that the partner faced, and aid in the smooth running of the partner's trial. Finally, the information could be used to cross-examine the young person if she gave evidence in the partner's trial. The young person opposed the application. The Court determined that the application was governed by District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules (the Rules), not by the Oranga Tamariki Rules as counsel for the young person argued. The Court observed that it had to balance the competing priorities of open justice with the young person's rights to confidentiality and privacy. It was well-established that publication of offending by young persons can cause long-lasting damage to the rest of the young persons' lives: therefore the young person's confidentiality and privacy rights took precedence. Also, the application for the FGC notes was barred by provisions of the Oranga Tamariki Act. However the Court found some degree of disclosure to be appropriate in order to protect the young person if she was called to give evidence in the partner's trial, and to uphold the fair and orderly administration of justice. The application was granted, subject to certain Court-imposed conditions. The Court concluded by observing that it was unsatisfactory that there are no court record access rules that cater specifically to the Youth Court. Judgment date: 12 November 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **