Curtis-Miller v Parks

[2004] WASC 223

CURTIS-MILLER -v- PARKS [2004] WASC 223

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASC 223
Case No:	MCS:53/2004	Heard:	1 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	1/11/04
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order that video record of interview of Nathan Trent Miller be supplied to solicitors for Justin Lee Curtis-Miller Order that video record of interview of Justin Lee Curtis-Miller be supplied to solicitors for Nathan Trent Miller
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JUSTIN LEE CURTIS-MILLER PAUL RAYMOND PARKS NATHAN TRENT MILLER
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Directions in relation to video tapes Power of Court of Petty Sessions to order supply of video tape Section 570B(1)(e) and s 570F Criminal Code
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 570B(1)(e), s 570F
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : CURTIS-MILLER -v- PARKS [2004] WASC 223 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 1 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : MCS 53 of 2004 BETWEEN : JUSTIN LEE CURTIS-MILLER

Applicant

AND

PAUL RAYMOND PARKS
Respondent

FILE NO/S : MCS 58 of 2004 BETWEEN : NATHAN TRENT MILLER

Applicant

AND

PAUL RAYMOND PARKS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Directions in relation to video tapes - Power of Court of Petty Sessions to order supply of video tape - Section 570B(1)(e) and s 570F Criminal Code

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 570B(1)(e), s 570F

Result:

Order that video record of interview of Nathan Trent Miller be supplied to solicitors for Justin Lee Curtis-Miller

Order that video record of interview of Justin Lee Curtis-Miller be supplied to solicitors for Nathan Trent Miller

Category: B

Representation:

MCS 53 of 2004

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M C Owens
Respondent : Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Max Owens & Co
Respondent : State Solicitor

MCS 58 of 2004

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms R M Parks
Respondent : Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Edward John Myers
Respondent : State Solicitor

(Page 3)

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil


(Page 4)

1 MILLER J: This is an application by the two applicants, pursuant to s 570F of the Criminal Code, for an order that each of the applicants be provided with the video record of interview of the other.

2 As the two applicants are jointly charged with the offences of assault occasioning bodily harm, it is appropriate that each should see the video recorded interview of the other. I therefore have no hesitation in making an order pursuant to s 570F of the Code that each applicant be provided with the video recorded interview of the other.

3 Although it is unnecessary to the decision I have made, I would make some observations about the provisions of the Code in relation to the supply of copies of videotaped records of interview with suspects. These observations are necessary because applicants such as those before me often have to make formal application to the Supreme or District Court for copies of videotapes when it would be more convenient for them to seek orders in the Court of Petty Sessions.

4 Chapter LXA of the Criminal Code deals with videotaped interviews of accused persons. Such an interview is an interview with a suspect by an officer of the Corruption and Crime Commission, or a member of the Police Force. Videotape is defined in s 570 to mean any videotape on which is recorded an interview, whether or not it is the videotape on which the interview was originally recorded.

5 Section 570A of the Code provides that videotapes of interviews with suspects are to be made available to an accused or his lawyer within 14 days after he is charged, or as soon as possible after that period.

6 Section 570B(2) of the Code makes it an offence for any person other than an authorised person to have in his or her possession a videotape.

7 Section 570B(1)(e) provides that an authorised person includes "a person acting at the direction of a court".

8 Clearly the provisions of s 570B(1)(e) contemplate that courts may direct that copies of videotapes be made available to persons concerned with proceedings against an accused person. This case is a classic example of a circumstance in which a court would direct that a videotape be made available to someone other than the accused or the accused's solicitor. Here, the solicitor for the co-accused is clearly entitled to the videotaped record of interview of a fellow accused.

(Page 5)

9 The term "court" is not defined in s 570 of the Code. Nor is it defined in s 1 of the Code. "District Court" is defined in s 1 to mean the District Court of Western Australia.

10 Section 5 of the Code provides the meaning and effect to be given to the term "summary conviction penalty" and there a Court of Petty Sessions is defined as the "court". Arguably, the term "court" in s 570B(1)(e) might be explained by reference to this provision, but I do not think that was intended.

11 Section 570F of the Code provides that the Supreme Court or the District Court may give directions as to the supply and copying of a videotape. This section does not incorporate the term "Court of Petty Sessions".

12 The Court of Petty Sessions at Bunbury has taken the view in a number of cases that it has no power to order the supply of a videotape on an application such as that before this Court. This view is taken, notwithstanding the provisions of s 570B(1)(e).

13 It seems to me that the Code is clear that only the Supreme or District Court may order the supply of a videotape. Although s 570B(1)(e) contemplates that a person may be in possession of a videotape at the direction of a court, there is nothing in Ch LXA to suggest that a Court of Petty Sessions can give a direction in that respect. If "court" was defined in s 1 or in s 570 of the Code to mean the Supreme Court, District Court or Court of Petty Sessions (or any other court for that matter), the position would be clear. In the absence of such a definition, it seems to me that the view of the Court of Petty Sessions, Bunbury is correct. A simple amendment to the Code by incorporating within s 570F the words "or a Court of Petty Sessions" after the words "the District Court" would overcome the problem.