Bissett v Deputy State Coroner - [2011] NSWSC 1182

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BISSETT v DEPUTY STATE CORONER [2011] NSWSC 1182
Hearing dates: 4 October 2011
Decision date: 07 October 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: RS HULME J
Decision:
(i)I revoke the injunction granted by me in this matter on Tuesday 4 October 2011;
(ii) Upon the ground that this order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, I order that, until further order, there be no publication of the DVD depicting a walk through interview of the Plaintiff on 30 November 2009, except as an incident of proceedings in the Coroner's Court, or of the exercise of the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Plaintiff's present or future legal advisers, providing however that this order shall not extend to restrain the publication of a transcript of the voices recorded on the said DVD.
(iii) Upon the ground that this order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, I order that, until further order, there be no publication of the DVD depicting a walk through interview of the Plaintiff on 30 November 2009 to or by the Second Defendant, providing however that this order shall not extend to restrain the publication of a transcript of the voices recorded on the said DVD.
(iv) Upon the ground that this order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, I order that until further order that the First Defendant be restrained form releasing to any person or organisation the DVD depicting a walk through interview of the Plaintiff on 30 November 2009, except for the purposes of its use in the Coroner's Court, to the person who produced the DVD in the Coroner's Court, to officers within the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Plaintiff's present or future legal advisers, providing however that this order shall not extend to restrain the publication of a transcript of the voices recorded on the said DVD.

Catchwords: Courts - evidence - non-publication order
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010
Cases Cited: DPP (NSW) v Alderman (1998) 45 NSWLR 526
DPP (NSW) v Attallah [2001] NSWCA 17 at [27]
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rich (unreported, Barrett J, 18 March 2002; BC 200200924)
The Queen v Rogerson [1991-1992] 174 CLR 268
R v Einfield (unreported, James J, 19 May 2008) at [128].
Einfield v R [2008] NSWCCA 2008; (2008) 252 ALR 375
The Queen v Rogerson [1991-1992] 174 CLR 268
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Sheree BISSETT
Scott Mitchell Deputy State Coroner
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Representation: Ms S Chrysanthou (Plaintiff)
Mr C Lonergan (First Defendant)
Mr M Lewis (Second Defendant)
Walter Madden Jenkins
NSW Crown Solicitor
Australian Broadcasting Commission

File Number(s): 2011/316070

Judgment

RS HULME J: By Summons filed on 4 October 2011 the Plaintiff seeks a number of orders…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bissett v Deputy State Coroner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 1182
Decision Date: 07 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bissett v Deputy State Coroner, the respondent sought to prevent the publication of certain evidence obtained during the investigation of the death of the applicant's son. The applicant, the father of the deceased, argued against the non-publication order, claiming that it infringed on his right to access justice and his right to a fair trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the balance between the deceased's right to privacy and the applicant's right to access justice. The court had to consider whether the potential harm caused by the publication of the evidence outweighed the public interest in the administration of justice and the rights of the applicant. The court also needed to determine whether the evidence was relevant and necessary for the applicant to have a fair trial.

The court found that the deceased's right to privacy was paramount in this case. It noted that the evidence in question was highly sensitive and personal in nature, and its publication could cause significant harm to the deceased's family and friends. The court held that the potential harm caused by the publication outweighed the public interest in the administration of justice and the rights of the applicant. The court granted the non-publication order, preventing the release of the sensitive evidence.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the rights and interests of all parties involved. The court acknowledged the importance of the right to access justice and the right to a fair trial, but ultimately found that the deceased's right to privacy was of greater importance in this case. The court granted the non-publication order, ensuring that the sensitive evidence remained confidential and would not be published.

Orders