Application of Con Bodiotis, Khaleb Taleb and Ghassan Amoun
[2013] NSWCCA 40
•08 February 2013
Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Application of Con Bodiotis, Khaleb Taleb and Ghassan Amoun [2013] NSWCCA 40 Hearing dates: 8 February 2013 Decision date: 08 February 2013 Before: Davies J Decision: Non-publication and suppression orders varied under s 13(3) Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 in the following terms:
Publication of the judgment is restricted to the Crown and lawyers for OS1. Publication of the judgment is further restricted to lawyers appearing for Con Bodiotis; Khaleb Taleb & Ghassan Amoun and only to them for the use in their applications to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against sentence.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - co-offenders - restriction of judgment of one co-offender - other co-offenders seek leave to appeal against their sentences on the parity principle - interests of justice to access restricted judgment. Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders 2010 Cases Cited: OS1 v R [2012] NSWCCA 102 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Crown
Con Bodiotis (Applicant)
Khaleb Taleb (Applicant)
Ghassan Amoun (Applicant)Representation: Counsel:
N Noman (Crown)
P Hamill SC (OS1)
T Edwards (Con Bodiotis)
S Fung (Khaled Taleb)
No appearance (Ghassan Amoun)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ly Lawyers (OS1)
(Con Bodiotis)
SF Legal (Khaled Taleb)
William O'Brien & Ross Hudson Solicitors (Ghassan Amoun)
File Number(s): 2008/79320; 2009/134916; 2009/136346 & 2009/152421
JUDgment
Judgment was given by the Court on 31 May 2012 in relation to an application for leave to appeal by OS1: OS1 v R [2012] NSWCCA 102. At the time judgment was delivered publication of the judgment was, under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010, restricted to the Crown and the Applicant.
Applications have been received on the part of three persons who are co-offenders of OS1, those persons being Con Bodiotis, Khaled Taleb and Ghassan Amoun. These parties seek review of the orders under s 13 of the Act. A fourth co-offender, a Mr Abbas, has not made any application.
The basis for the review is that each of the parties has appealed, relying either on a parity argument amongst the co-offenders or specifically in relation to the discount that has been given for assistance. In that regard, part of the judgment of the Court in relation to OS1 dealt with a discount for assistance provided.
Written submissions have been received from and on behalf of OS1 and also from the Crown. Neither of those parties opposes the whole of the judgment being made available to the legal advisers of the present applicants.
Is to be noted that when the sentence of the District Court was imposed, no order was made for suppression of OS1's identity. Nevertheless, this Court took the view that that was an important consideration arising out of the matters that were raised on the appeal and at the sentencing proceedings.
It seems to me that the interests of justice require that, for the Applicants to be able fairly to argue their case based on a discount for assistance or parity of sentencing, the legal advisers of those Applicants be able to read and digest what this Court has said in relation to the sentencing of OS1.
For those reasons the order restricting the publication of the OS1 judgment is varied under s 13(3) in this way. Publication of the judgment is restricted to the Crown and lawyers for OS1. Publication of the judgment is further restricted to lawyers appearing for Con Bodiotis, Khaled Taleb and Ghassan Amoun and only to them for use in their applications to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against sentence.
**********
Decision last updated: 12 March 2013
0
0
1