national, audience.  In determining that it was appropriate for the Court to do this rather than leave it for Parliament three reasons were given.  First it was considered a refinement rather than an extensive development of the law.  Secondly it was said that although generally value judgments are for the legislature, in this area the courts have long been making them without interference.    Thirdly,  the  recent  review  of  the  law  of  defamation  and  enactment  of  a  new Defamation  Act  had  maintained  the  central  core  of  the  defence  of  qualified  privilege untouched so that the courts were left to determine the scope of its application. In 1994 the Court formulated a cause of action entitling remedies for acts of the state or its agencies infringing the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.¹³   It  was  considered  by  the  majority  that  Parliament  must  have  intended  that  there  be  such remedies even though a remedies provisions in the draft Bill had been dropped.  They drew upon the obligation in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the state should provide “effective remedies”. Finally, in 2004 the Court by majority of 3 to 2 determined that there should be an available action  in  tort  to  enable  remedies  to  be  sought  in  respect  of  the  publicising  of  private  facts where that is, or would be, highly offensive to a reasonable person.¹⁴  The majority considered such  a  step  appropriate  in  light  of  English  authority  to  similar  effect  (though  differently categorised),  international  obligations  to  protect  individual  privacy  and  a  landscape  of  not inconsistent  legislation.    The  minority  expressed  the  view  that  any  such  limitation  on  the freedom of expression should not be introduced by the courts. By selecting these examples, I do not wish to be understood as suggesting they represent all of the cases in recent years in which the law has been developed (or not) by judicial decision.   They  are  simply  some  of  the  cases  in  which  the  judgments  address  expressly  whether  the court should act or defer to the legislature, and that traverse the arguments for and against. The  judgments  in  these  cases  reflect  different  approaches  by  the  various  judges.    In  those cases   in   which   the   court   has   determined   to   develop   the   law   the   international   trend 13 Simpson v Attorney-General (Baigent’s case) [1994] 3 NZLR 667 14 Hosking v Runting CA101/03 judgment 25 March 2004.