Curtis-Miller v Parks

The Supreme Court of Western Australia dealt with an application made by Justin Lee Curtis-Miller and Nathan Trent Miller under section 570F of the Criminal Code. The applicants sought an order for the video record of their interviews with the police to be supplied to their respective solicitors. The applicants, who were jointly charged with the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm, argued that it was in their interest to view the recorded interviews of each other. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the authority to order the supply of these videotapes under the provisions of the Criminal Code.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Petty Sessions had the power to order the supply of videotapes of police interviews under section 570B(1)(e) of the Criminal Code. This section allows a person to be in possession of a videotape if acting at the direction of a court. The applicants argued that the term "court" in this provision included the Court of Petty Sessions, while the respondent contended that only the Supreme or District Court had such authority. Additionally, the court examined whether the Court of Petty Sessions could properly exercise its discretion under section 570F of the Criminal Code.

The court held that while section 570B(1)(e) of the Criminal Code allows a person to possess a videotape if acting at the direction of a court, this does not necessarily confer upon the Court of Petty Sessions the power to direct the supply of videotapes. Section 570F of the Code explicitly mentions the Supreme or District Court as the entities empowered to give directions regarding the supply and copying of videotapes, omitting the Court of Petty Sessions. The court found that the term "court" was not defined to include the Court of Petty Sessions, and thus, the Court of Petty Sessions at Bunbury had correctly held that it lacked the power to order the supply of videotapes in such circumstances. The court noted that a simple amendment to the Code to include the Court of Petty Sessions within section 570F would clarify the situation.

The court granted the applicants' request, ordering that the video record of the interview of Nathan Trent Miller be supplied to the solicitors for Justin Lee Curtis-Miller, and vice versa. The court observed that this decision aligned with the spirit of the law, ensuring that co-accused in joint charges could adequately prepare their defence by viewing each other's recorded interviews.