Chaos reigns over the Tom Phillips suppression. No one knows who enforces it

Thursday, 18 September 2025

Who’s in charge of enforcing the suppressions in the Tom Phillips case? It’s a seemingly simple question that’s proving impossible to answer - with different parts of the justice machine passing the buck, not commenting or not knowing. Lloyd Burr reports.

If you’re caught breaking into someone’s house and stealing their stuff, police will charge you, you’ll go to court, and you’ll be punished.

Same thing applies if you’re speeding, dealing drugs, or committing the vast array of crimes we have in New Zealand.

But write a social media post which breaches suppressions issued by the High Court, you’ll most probably get away with it.

That’s exactly what’s happening in the Tom Phillips case, where a strict injunction is in place that suppresses the publication of specific details about the case.

As I reported earlier, NZ based media are abiding by court orders but there are people posting suppressed information in comments on TikTok, Facebook, X, Reddit, and Instagram about the Tom Phillips case. Even Google’s implicated.

Regardless of whether you agree with it, or are even aware of it, it’s a crime to breach the injunction and the punishments include prison time and massive fines.

But what’s becoming increasingly apparent is both a lack of urgency in clamping down on the rule-breakers, and a lack of knowing exactly which agency is responsible for enforcing it.

The Justice Minister says it’s the courts. The courts say it’s the agencies like police and Crown Law to enforce it but for parties (lawyers or Joe Public) to report them.

Police say they haven’t received any complaints. Crown Law says it won’t say whether it’s received any complaints or if the Solicitor-General is investigating. The Attorney-General hasn’t yet spoken to the Solicitor-General.

It’s a very confusing system and there’s not a single one that has picked up the baton and taken control of the wild west on social media.

So who is technically in charge?

Solicitor-General Una Jagose KC, as the head of Crown Law, has the responsibility for enforcing suppressions in the judiciary but not actively seeking rule-breakers.

Typically, any cases of suppression breaches must be reported to Crown Law. It doesn’t proactively search for people who breach them.

Problem is, it’s refusing to say whether it has received complaints or is investigating any purported breaches relating to the Phillips case.

“Thank you for your inquiry, but Crown Law on behalf of the Solicitor-General will not comment about whether any steps have been taken in respect of possible breaches of the injunction. The matter of the injunction is live and before the High Court,” a spokesperson says.

Also in the picture is Attorney-General Judith Collins who stays out of the operational side of the judiciary but is its representative on the executive side (the Government, ministers, etc).

She’s not aware of any actions being taken by Crown Law.

“I do not know that, actually at the moment. It’s just that I haven’t spoken to her [Jagose] for a couple of days,” Collins says.

“I’m happy to find out if anyone is doing anything. But other than that, I can’t require them to do that”.

Given there are hundreds of examples of the suppression seemingly being breached on social media platforms and search engines, yet no action being taken by the myriad of entities and agencies involved, is Collins concerned?

“You’re raising a good point. And clearly the agencies have to make their own decisions. I can’t direct those agencies to make decisions on that. I’ve made it very clear, people need to respect the suppression orders,” she says.

Can’t the High Court do something given it made the order?

Stuff asked Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith if he's figured out who’s in charge of enforcing the injunctions.

“Well, the courts are responsible for the enforcement of injunctions,” he replied. “I'm responsible for the law itself, and that's what I'll be looking at”.

But a spokesperson for the Chief Justice sees it differently.

“In general, the courts make orders and other agencies enforce these orders. It is for parties to bring any alleged breaches of court orders relating to suppression to the attention of the agencies, or the court,” the spokesperson says.

That suggests it’s up to members of the public or the legal team in the Phillips case - led by Linda Clark - to scour the internet and report each of the individual breaches to either Crown Law or the High Court.

Essentially, that means the burden of responsibility for finding breaches of the injunction is not on the justice system that granted it.

What are the social media and internet giants saying?

Only two of them have responded to queries about their role in providing a platform for the publication of suppressed information.

But neither of those responses showed the companies taking any proactive responsibility - instead saying they’d look at any posts or comments that were flagged to them.

“Google respects New Zealand law and, when it receives court orders, it will review and respond appropriately,” a Google spokesperson says.

Meta didn’t provide a comment but reiterated it had “pathways” for government bodies to report breaches of suppression orders.

The role of offshore-based internet companies has long been a problem when it comes to whether they’re in New Zealand’s jurisdiction and therefore subject to its laws.

Goldsmith says he’s sought advice on how to fix this grey area but so far, hasn’t heard anything.

Where’s Oranga Tamariki, which is charged with the care and protection of children in NZ, in all of this?

There are questions over why it isn’t using its vast taxpayer-funded legal team to push for the injunction to be enforced.

Instead, the injunction action is being paid for by the children’s grandparents - likely at great expense.

Oranga Tamariki’s spokesperson Warwick Morehu says while its primary role is the care and protection of the kids, it also includes the responsibility of protecting the children’s privacy.

“When matters are before the Family Court, section 11B of the Family Court Act 1980 applies, which provides clear rules about confidentiality of information that is before the Family Court.”

When asked why the grandparents are having to pay for the protection of their grandchildren’s privacy, Collins responded: “I don’t know what the financial arrangement is and what the lawyer is charging or anything else. And what I do know is that I cannot get myself involved in individual cases,” she says.