Director of Public Prosecutions v Giurina
[2015] VSC 182
•1 May 2015
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
PRACTICE COURT
S CI 2014 00805
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| ERMANNO GIURINA | First Defendant |
| MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA | Second Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | CAVANOUGH J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 May 2015 |
DATE OF RULING: | 1 May 2015 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Giurina & Anor |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VSC 182 |
---
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the First Defendant (Applicant) | Mr E Giurina in person | |
| For the Plaintiff | No appearance |
HIS HONOUR:
The first defendant, Mr Ermanno Giurina, applies by an ex parte summons filed on 24 April 2015 for a pseudonym order in relation to his identity as the first defendant, and for associated orders to suppress the publication of various details relating to this proceeding.
The proceeding is an application for judicial review brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions to challenge a decision made by a Magistrate to grant a permanent stay of criminal charges, being mainly charges of theft, against Mr Giurina.
Mr Giurina’s application for a pseudonym order is hopeless.
In the first place, there is no proper basis or reason for Mr Giurina to advance this application on an ex parte basis, as he has previously been advised by the Registry of this Court.
The application is made far too late. The substantive proceeding has been on foot since February 2014. It is listed for final hearing for next Thursday 7 May 2015. There has been no prior hint that an application of the present kind might be made.
Mr Giurina suggests that the orders sought are warranted on the basis that, without them, certain individuals referred to in his affidavit in support and in his written submissions might be alerted to a claimed intention on his part to investigate them or their conduct, or to have them or their conduct investigated, for claimed wrongdoing. Mr Giurina suggests that they might hide or destroy evidence or information such as computer records which he says he may be able to use against them in future proceedings against them.
He says he wants to raise matters relating to their conduct in argument during the judicial review hearing next Thursday.
Mr Giurina’s suggestions are utterly fanciful.
The individuals concerned have long known of the matters to which Mr Giurina’s claims and allegations relate. Indeed, those very matters have been involved in various legal proceedings between Mr Giurina and the relevant individuals over the last four years or so, including proceedings in VCAT and in this Court. The matters were also involved in the Magistrates’ Court proceeding to which the present proceeding relates.
Moreover, there is no issue of primary fact connected with those matters. All of Mr Giurina’s points are technical legal points and there is absolutely no basis for a concern that the relevant individuals would have any incentive to destroy any evidence or information that Mr Giurina could possibly need in any future case.
As already mentioned, the substantive proceeding which is due to be heard next Thursday is an application for judicial review. It will turn on the material that was before the Magistrates’ Court. It is highly unlikely that any new matters of primary fact will arise.
Of course, if the individuals concerned were ever going to hide or destroy any relevant evidence or information, they have already had every opportunity to do so.
In any event, there is absolutely nothing in the material before me to give any colour or credence to any suggestion that the relevant individuals might be inclined, by disposition or otherwise, to hide or destroy any relevant evidence or information.
The principles relating to applications for pseudonym orders and associated orders are well known. They were discussed recently by Justice Dixon in Hunter v Australian Football League.[1] Mr Giurina’s case does not fall within any category of case in which a pseudonym order has been made in the past.
[1][2015] VSC 112.
Mr Giurina has not deposed that he would be deterred from defending this proceeding if a pseudonym order were not made. Further, he could not possibly be heard to say that he would be reasonably deterred from defending this proceeding in the absence of such an order.
The summons filed 24 April 2015 is dismissed.
0