 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
KITV-4 v. Hirai9/13/2001
court's supervisory jurisdiction over the lower courts" under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-4, id. at 226-27, 580 P.2d at 53, "as well as the exercise of [this] court's discretionary power to issue its writ of prohibition" under HRS § 602-5. Id. at 227, 580 P.2d at 53. Even the presence of "the additional avenue of appeal from the circuit court's denial of the petition," id. at 236 n.10, 580 P.2d at 58 n.10, was not an obstacle to jurisdiction inasmuch as this court believed that the trial courts were "in immediate need of direction from this court on a procedural and substantive matter of public importance[.]" Id. at 227, 580 P.2d at 53. I believe, then, that jurisdiction over closure orders may be exercised under HRS § 602-4 (1993) as authorized by Gannett, or by treating Petitioners' petition for writ under HRS § 602-5(4) (1993) as one for prohibition rather than mandamus, or under HRS § 602-5(7) (1993), which authorizes the making of orders to promote justice in matters pending before us.
Without reaching the merits of the case, the impetus for entertaining the petition would arise from the well-established common law right to inspect and copy public records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). " he public does generally have the right, established by the common law, to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records." Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 239, 580 P.2d 58, 61 (1978). Thus, court records are public records, and are available to the public in general, including news reporters, unless a specific exception makes certain records non-public. See In re Estate of Hearst, 136 Cal. Rptr. 821 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). Our jurisprudence distrusts secrecy in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to proceedings and records of judicial tribunals. See id. at 824-25.
The considerations underlying the public right of access to court records are similar to those which underpin the right to open court proceedings. In Gannett, this court stated:
The reasons underlying the policy of open and public administration of justice are clear and compelling. Because of our natural suspicion and traditional aversion as a people to secret proceedings, suggestions of unfairness, discrimination, undue leniency, favoritism, and incompetence are more easily entertained when access by the public to judicial proceedings are unduly restricted. Secrecy of judicial action can only breed ignorance and distrust of courts and suspicion concerning the competence and impartiality of judges. Thus, the openness which serves as a safeguard against attempts to employ our courts as instruments of persecution also serves to enhance public trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. Such trust and confidence is a vital ingredient in the administration of justice under our system of jurisprudence. The efficiency, competence, and fairness of our judicial system are matters of legitimate interest and concern to our citizenry, and free access to our courtrooms is essential to their proper understanding of the nature and quality of the judicial process. 59 Haw. at 230, 580 P.2d at 55.
As presented in the petition and based on the record before us, in sealing court records in this case, the court precluded access to what are normally considered public records. In doing so, the court apparently relied on the rules of court having to do with intervention. See Exhibit A to Petitioners' Appendix at 2-3. Petitioners sought to intervene under Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24, see Exhibit C to Petitioners' Appendix at 309, and the court relied upon the strict language of that rule in findi
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|