AW -v- RAYNEY [No 2] [2010] WASCA 221

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WASCA 221
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:22/2010	Heard:	23 SEPTEMBER 2010
Coram:	BUSS JA NEWNES JA	Delivered:	24/09/10
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Variations made to order
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AW LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY
Catchwords:	Appeal Orders made upon allowing the appeal Variation of suppression order pursuant to liberty to apply Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : AW -v- RAYNEY [No 2] [2010] WASCA 221 CORAM : BUSS JA

NEWNES JA

HEARD : 23 SEPTEMBER 2010 DELIVERED : 24 SEPTEMBER 2010 FILE NO/S : CACR 22 of 2010 BETWEEN : AW

Appellant

AND

LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CACR 23 of 2010 BETWEEN : LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY

Appellant

AND

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE FLYNN

File No : SJA 1009 of 2010, SJA 1011 of 2010

Catchwords:

Appeal - Orders made upon allowing the appeal - Variation of suppression order pursuant to liberty to apply - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Variations made to order

Category: B

Representation:

CACR 22 of 2010

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms D Scaddan

Respondent : Ms L B Black

Intervener : Mr A V McCarthy

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Respondent : D G Price & Co

Intervener : Mr A V McCarthy

CACR 23 of 2010

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms L B Black

Respondent : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms D Scaddan

Intervener : Mr A V McCarthy

Solicitors:

Appellant : D G Price & Co

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Intervener : Mr A V McCarthy

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

1 BUSS JA: This is an application by AW, who is the appellant in CACR 22 of 2010 and the respondent in CACR 23 of 2010.

2 The application is supported by an affidavit of Dianne Patricia Scadden sworn 14 September 2010.

3 In the application, AW seeks a variation of the orders made by this court on 6 August 2010 in CACR 22 of 2010.

4 Order 7 of those orders provides that:

No person or entity is to communicate or publish to any other person or entity any of the reasons for decision of this court in appeals CACR 22 of 2010 and CACR 23 of 2010 until further order of this court,

subject to certain exceptions specified in sub-pars (a) to (d) of that order.

5 The orders wanted by AW are:

(a) order 7 of the orders made 6 August 2010 be cancelled;

(b) in the alternative, order 7 be varied to read as follows:

Publication of the reasons for decision in

AW v Rayney

[2010] WASCA 161

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AW v Rayney [No 2]

Details

AGLC: AW v Rayney [No 2] [2010] WASCA 221
Case: [2010] WASCA 221
Decision Date: 24 SEPTEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AW v Rayney [No 2] involved a dispute where the primary concern was the suppression order issued by the court. The appeal was heard by a relevant Australian court, which was tasked with reviewing and potentially varying the suppression order made in an earlier proceeding. The appellant, AW, sought to have certain aspects of the suppression order altered, while the respondent, Rayney, aimed to maintain the status quo.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the suppression order should be varied and, if so, to what extent. The court had to consider the balance between the need for confidentiality and the public interest in the information being disclosed. The case required the court to weigh the importance of maintaining the suppression order against the potential benefits of varying it, taking into account the specific circumstances and the nature of the information involved.

The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and the implications of the proposed variations. It found that the circumstances had sufficiently changed to warrant a modification of the suppression order. The court was satisfied that the variations sought would not compromise the essential purpose of the original order while allowing for greater transparency and access to information. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and made the necessary variations to the suppression order. This decision underscores the importance of reviewing suppression orders in light of evolving circumstances and the need to maintain a balance between confidentiality and public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

Variations made to order

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.