Agnew v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2013] WASC 306
•15 AUGUST 2013
AGNEW -v- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [2013] WASC 306
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 306 | |
| 15/08/2013 | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1785/2013 | 15 AUGUST 2013 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 15/08/13 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WAYNE ROBERT AGNEW DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS KARL O'CALLAGHAN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE SERVICE |
Catchwords: | Application for copy of police interview Section 122 Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) Copies provided Continuation of proceedings pointless |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Agnew v The Queen [2003] WASCA 188 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
First Respondent
KARL O'CALLAGHAN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE SERVICE
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Application for copy of police interview - Section 122 Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) - Copies provided - Continuation of proceedings pointless
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : In person
First Respondent : Mr J O'Sullivan
Second Respondent : Mr J O'Sullivan
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : In person
First Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Agnew v The Queen [2003] WASCA 188
1 HALL J: The plaintiff, Mr Wayne Robert Agnew, is a serving prisoner. He was convicted of murder on 2 March 2001 following a trial. An appeal against his conviction was dismissed: Agnew v The Queen [2003] WASCA 188. Mr Agnew continues to dispute the correctness of his conviction. In particular, he disputes that video recorded interviews with him relied upon by the prosecution at his trial were complete.
2 By notice of originating motion filed on 15 May 2013 Mr Agnew sought 'directions or orders' against the first and second respondents that they provide him with complete and unedited copy of the video records of interview undertaken on 17 and 18 December 1999. The notice of motion was supported by an affidavit annexing documents relating to previous efforts by Mr Agnew to obtain copies of the videos in a form that satisfied him.
3 At a directions hearing on 7 June 2013, Mr Agnew confirmed that in substance this was an application for directions under s 122 of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA). That section provides that this court may give directions as to the supply, copying, editing, erasure, playing or broadcast of an audio visual recording of an interview of a suspect by the police. Counsel for the respondents advised that, whilst copies of the interviews had been previously provided, there was no objection to making further copies available to Mr Agnew. In those circumstances, I made an order pursuant to s 122 that copies of the unedited videos be supplied to Mr Agnew.
4 After some delays in locating the originals, copies were made and delivered to Mr Agnew in prison. That should have brought these proceedings to an end. However, Mr Agnew then wrote to the court stating that whilst the videos had been delivered by a police officer they had then been taken from his possession by prison authorities and he had not had an opportunity to view them.
5 At a further directions hearing held on 15 August 2013 Mr Agnew confirmed that the copy videos had been delivered but removed from him and that he still had not viewed them. He took the view that the actions of the prison authorities were unlawful. He stated an intention to make application to join other parties to this action. These were parties who Mr Agnew alleged were responsible for withholding the copy videos.
6 I pointed out to Mr Agnew that the proceedings that he had brought against the respondents had been resolved by the course of events. There was nothing more the respondents could do and to continue proceedings further in respect of them was pointless. Whether or not the prison authorities had subsequently acted lawfully or whether Mr Agnew had some proper basis for complaint to those responsible for the administration of the prisons were not things that fell within the ambit of the proceedings brought.
7 Mr Agnew referred to seeking injunctions against prison authorities. It is not possible merely by adding new parties to fundamentally change the nature of the proceedings. Nor is it the role of the courts to generally administer prisons.
8 In the circumstances, there being no proper basis to further continue these proceedings, I ordered that they be dismissed.
0