Director of Public Prosecutions v Gatto Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1401 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

DOMINIC GATTO

RULING NO. 2

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2005
DATE OF RULING:	28 April 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gatto
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 148

---

Criminal Law and Procedure – Murder – Evidence – Publication on prohibition order refused – s.18(1)(c) Supreme Court Act 1986.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr G. Horgan QC with Mr A. Tinney	Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Richter QC with Mr M. Taft	Galbally Rolfe

---------------------------------------

HIS HONOUR:

Ms Pavlou on behalf of the Chief Commissioner has responsibly applied for the exercise under s.18(1)(c) Supreme Court Act 1986 for an Order prohibiting the publication of a report of part of the proceedings in this jury trial. The application is made pursuant to the powers in that section and based upon the considerations set forth in s.19(b) in particular, namely, prejudicing the administration of justice in relation to ongoing police investigations.

I had previously made appropriate - at least what I considered appropriate - Orders until the matters became evidence in the jury trial. The material which is not to become evidence in the jury trial should remain part of the confidential police investigative process and I do not need to refer to it further. However, some material is now to be part of the evidence in the public jury trial. That material is that Mr Benvenuto was shot and killed with a .38 firearm, Mr Radev with a .357, Mr Kallipolitis with a .38 and Mr Dibra with two weapons, a .22 and a 9mm firearm.

I have had every regard to the very helpful submissions made on behalf of the Chief Commissioner and I understand the responsible basis upon which they are made.

In Confidential Ruling No. 1 I have set out in detail the relevant submissions appertaining to this matter made on behalf of the Chief Commissioner, and the relevant factual material. It is not necessary, and is inappropriate because presently the proceedings are in public, to rehearse those matters. However, I bear those matters in mind. Mr Pavlou before me today has made reference to those matters categorically, without detailing them.

It is of course always important for ongoing police investigations to be conducted appropriately. Different considerations apply to an investigation on the one hand and a public curial procedure on the other. We have now reached the point in this trial of the public curial procedure, the jury having been empanelled and the learned prosecutor having opened the case. During the course of this case, those matters that I have just factually recited will become evidence. I consider, weighing on the one

hand the entirely proper police interest in ongoing investigations and on the other, the legitimate public interest in having public trials heard publicly, that the latter must prevail. That does not under-value the former, but it values the latter in the balance as the persuasive consideration.

Further, the media have a most important function in the administration of justice, in that court proceedings are public and it is the media who effectively bring part of those proceedings to the public, because of course the public cannot all be physically here in court. In the Benthamite sense publicity is effected by the bringing of the court to the public via the media.

For those reasons I conclude that it is proper and appropriate to refuse the order sought by Ms Pavlou.

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Gatto, the respondent, a former police officer, was charged with the murder of his partner. The case came before the court on an application to prevent the publication of the proceedings and evidence. The applicant, Director of Public Prosecutions, sought to prohibit the publication of certain details that could potentially prejudice the jury pool. The court was tasked with determining whether the publication of the information would interfere with the administration of justice and whether the prohibition order should be granted.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the scope of the prohibition order under section 18(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1986, and the extent to which the details of the proceedings could be published without causing prejudice to the trial. The court considered the balance between the public's right to know and the rights of the accused to a fair trial. It was necessary to weigh the potential harm that could arise from the publication of the information against the public interest in the case.

The court ruled that the publication of the details in question would not interfere with the administration of justice and declined to grant the prohibition order. The court found that the information did not contain any prejudicial content that would prevent the jury from reaching a fair verdict based on the evidence presented in court. The court emphasised the importance of a fair trial and the right to a public trial, while also recognising the need to protect sensitive information that could potentially prejudice the proceedings. The decision highlighted the need for a balanced approach in determining the scope of publication in criminal cases.

The court's final orders were that the prohibition order be refused, and that the details of the proceedings could be published without causing prejudice to the trial. The decision in this case provides guidance on the scope of publication in criminal cases and the balance between the public's right to know and the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Gatto

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established