Corcoris v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)

[2006] VSC 81

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1530 of 2004

NICHOLAS CORCORIS	Applicant
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 MARCH 2006
DATE OF RULING:	3 MARCH 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CORCORIS v DPP (COMMONWEALTH)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 81

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Mr Corcoris	Mr Scott with Mr Redford	Hargreaves & Associates
For DPP (Commonwealth)	Ms Davy	DPP (Commonwealth) 15/460 Lonsdale Street Melbourne
For the Official Trustee	Mr Giacco	Australian Government Solicitor
For the AUAP non-parties	Mr Simpson	Spark Matheson Partners
For the other non-party Innovative Lifestyle Pty Ltd	Mr Dealehr	Belleli King & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1. Application is made on behalf of Nicholas Corcoris, the respondent in matters before this Court involving the making of pecuniary penalty orders and the variation of a restraining order, that the matters the subject of those orders be suppressed pursuant to s.18(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1986. It is put that the matters, if they became public, would create great prejudice in relation to a proposed prosecution of the respondent Corcoris in committal proceedings due to commence in October 2006. The charges the subject of the committal proceedings apparently relate to alleged tax offences.

1. Given the nature of the material contained in the pecuniary penalty orders and the nature of the offences which the respondent faces, I accept that any publication of those matters is capable of creating considerable prejudice.

1. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions supports this application and I have concluded that I should accede to it on the basis that the publication would prejudice the administration of justice, which is one of the bases for the Court acting under the relevant section of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

1. During the course of Mr Scott's submission I was referred to a decision of Kaye J, DPP (Cth) v Corcoris and The Age made on 18 February 2005 and cited as [2005] VSC 141. That was an application pursuant to Order 1.11.4 of Ch. VI of the Rules of the Supreme Court to inspect documents on the Court file. On that occasion his Honour gave some access to the material, but in my view events have moved on from that point and, given the nature of the orders made by consent today, I think the suppression orders sought are appropriate.

1. Accordingly, I will make the orders.

---