AGNEW -v- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [2013] WASC 306

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 306
Published:	15/08/2013
Case No:	CIV:1785/2013	Heard:	15 AUGUST 2013
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	15/08/13
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	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

CITATION : AGNEW -v- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [2013] WASC 306 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 15 AUGUST 2013 DELIVERED : 15 AUGUST 2013 PUBLISHED : 15 AUGUST 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1785 of 2013 BETWEEN : WAYNE ROBERT AGNEW

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.

The case of Agnew v Director of Public Prosecutions concerned an application by the defendant, Agnew, for a copy of police interview transcripts under section 122 of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA). The matter was before the court on the basis that the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the respondent, had already provided the requested copies to the defendant. The dispute centred around whether the application should be dismissed due to the futility of continuing the proceedings given that the requested information had already been furnished.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application should proceed given the respondent had already complied with the defendant's request for the police interview transcripts. This raised questions about the principles of judicial economy and the appropriate use of court resources when a party has already obtained the relief sought. The court had to balance the need for efficiency in the judicial process against the defendant's procedural rights.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the primary purpose of the application had been rendered moot by the respondent's provision of the requested documents. The court held that continuing with the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would be a waste of judicial resources. Consequently, the court determined that the application should be dismissed as it would be pointless to proceed further. The court underscored that while the defendant had a right to seek the documents, the futility of the application meant that it was appropriate to bring the matter to an end.

The court dismissed the application and made no further orders. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that legal processes are not used to unnecessarily burden the court system.

Agnew v Director of Public Prosecutions

AGNEW -v- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [2013] WASC 306

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established