AW -v- RAYNEY [No 4] [2012] WASCA 117
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASCA 117 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:22/2010 | 18 APRIL 2012 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA NEWNES JA | 8/06/12 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Suppression orders varied | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | AW LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY |
Catchwords: | Courts and Judges Open-court or open justice principle Correlative entitlement to publish a fair and accurate report of proceedings in court or reasons for decision Fundamental right of an accused to a fair trial Suppression orders Whether suppression orders 'necessary' for the proper administration of justice including securing the fair trial of an accused Whether existing suppression orders made in relation to the reasons for decision of the Court of Appeal should be set aside or varied |
Legislation: | Australian Constitution, s 80 Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.2(1) Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 151 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 118 Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 31A Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 555 Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), s 5(1)(b) Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), s 7(1)(a) |
Case References: | Attorney-General (NSW) v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 368 Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 46; (1986) 161 CLR 98 AW v Rayney [2010] WASCA 161 AW v Rayney [No 2] [2010] WASCA 221 AW v Rayney [No 3] [2010] WASCA 244 Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Draper [2004] SASC 351; (2004) 90 SASR 160 Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125 Herald and Weekly Times v Williams [2005] VSC 316 Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic) [1987] HCA 56; (1987) 164 CLR 15 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; (2011) 243 CLR 506 Jago v District Court (NSW) [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 L v ABC [2005] NTSC 5 McKinney v The Queen [1991] HCA 6; (1991) 171 CLR 468 Minister for Justice v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1970] WAR 202 Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) [1999] HCA 19; (1999) 198 CLR 435 R v MacFarlane [1923] HCA 39; (1923) 32 CLR 518 R v Perish [2011] NSWSC 1102 R v Strawhorn (No 2) [2006] VSC 433 Re a Former Officer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation [1987] VR 875 Re Consolidated Press Ltd; Ex parte Terrill (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 255 Re Truth & Sportsman Ltd; Ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 242 Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Willesee (1985) 3 NSWLR 650 Riley McKay Pty Ltd v McKay [1982] 1 NSWLR 264 Russell v Russell [1976] HCA 23; (1976) 134 CLR 495 The State of Victoria v Australian Building Construction Employees' & Builders Labourers' Federation [1982]… |
Continue reading AW v Rayney [No 4]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- AW v Rayney [No 4] [2012] WASCA 117
- Case
- [2012] WASCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, AW, sought to have suppression orders varied in relation to reasons for a decision of the Court of Appeal. The orders had been made by the Court of Appeal and sought to limit the publication of information about the proceedings. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the suppression orders were no longer necessary, given the time that had elapsed since the original proceedings and the changes in circumstances.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the suppression orders were necessary for the proper administration of justice, including securing the fair trial of the appellant. This involved a balancing exercise between the open justice principle, which supports the public's right to know about court proceedings, and the need to protect the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court needed to consider whether the suppression orders were still necessary given the passage of time and changes in circumstances.
The court found that the suppression orders were no longer necessary for the proper administration of justice. It considered the appellant's right to a fair trial, the open justice principle, and the public interest in reporting on court proceedings. The court concluded that the passage of time and changes in circumstances meant that the suppression orders were no longer necessary to protect the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court varied the suppression orders accordingly.
The court varied the suppression orders to remove the restrictions on the publication of information about the proceedings. The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial was no longer at risk and that the public interest in reporting on court proceedings outweighed any potential harm to the appellant. The court emphasised the importance of the open justice principle and the need to balance it with the need to protect individual rights.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the suppression orders were necessary for the proper administration of justice, including securing the fair trial of the appellant. This involved a balancing exercise between the open justice principle, which supports the public's right to know about court proceedings, and the need to protect the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court needed to consider whether the suppression orders were still necessary given the passage of time and changes in circumstances.
The court found that the suppression orders were no longer necessary for the proper administration of justice. It considered the appellant's right to a fair trial, the open justice principle, and the public interest in reporting on court proceedings. The court concluded that the passage of time and changes in circumstances meant that the suppression orders were no longer necessary to protect the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court varied the suppression orders accordingly.
The court varied the suppression orders to remove the restrictions on the publication of information about the proceedings. The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial was no longer at risk and that the public interest in reporting on court proceedings outweighed any potential harm to the appellant. The court emphasised the importance of the open justice principle and the need to balance it with the need to protect individual rights.
Orders
Orders of the court
Suppression orders varied
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.