Director of Public Prosecutions v Woodhead (Ruling No 3)

[2016] VSC 471

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0164

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

EASTON GEORGE WOODHEAD

---

JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 November 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 November 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Woodhead (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 471

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Application by media for copies of CCTV footage tendered as exhibits – Application refused

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams QC with Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Tovey QC with Ms C Hollingworth	Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler
For Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd	Ms S McGeoch	Macpherson Kelley Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1. On 2 November 2015, I rejected an application by Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (‘the Applicant’) for access to CCTV footage tendered as exhibits and played by the parties in the course of a criminal trial of Easton Woodhead on the charge of murder.

1. A further application was made for the same CCTV footage after the jury verdict, although on this occasion no formal arguments were advanced in support of the application. These are my reasons for reject the further application.

1. I refer to my previous ruling for the background to the media request for CCTV footage.[1]

   [1]DPP v Woodhead (Ruling No 2) [2016] VSC 470.

1. The jury delivered a verdict of not guilty of murder because of mental impairment in the late afternoon on Monday 2 November 2015.

1. At that time, a reporter from the Applicant orally re-enlivened her application for release of the CCTV footage.[2]

   [2]Transcript of Trial, DPP v Woodhead (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2014 0164, Justice Jane Dixon, 2 November 2015) 1795. The transcript misattributed the reporter’s words to Ms McGeoch.

1. I  considered the further application in light of the earlier arguments advanced by the Applicant and the new stage of the trial that had been reached, very shortly after verdict.

1. I again declined to release the CCTV footage although the prosecution no longer opposed its release.

1. Although the risk of juror influence had passed with the announcement of the verdict, a new consideration had arisen by virtue of the nature of the jury’s verdict.

1. Given that Mr Woodhead was found to have been mentally impaired at the time of the offence and was to be remanded in custody pending preparation of a report and a certificate under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to Be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic), it appeared relevant that the report and certificate be obtained before a decision was made about release of the CCTV footage.

1. I should add that, when I announced that I would not release the CCTV footage whilst the jury were still deliberating, I also indicated that the parties were at liberty to file advance submissions in support of a renewed application linking any such submissions to the range of potential verdicts, because the nature of the ultimate verdict would likely have some bearing on any renewed application for access to the CCTV footage. This did not eventuate prior to verdict.

1. At verdict, I ultimately considered that I might be better assisted by further submissions or evidence about the competing arguments to be made in light of the verdict when the parties had had adequate time to absorb the verdict and consider their respective positions and when the report had been received regarding Mr Woodhead’s mental condition pursuant to s 41 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to Be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic).

1. Mr Tovey QC, counsel for the accused, acknowledged that further consideration of any potential future impact on his client from the release of the CCTV footage was needed.

1. It is open to consider that the community has an interest in the recovery of Mr Woodhead from mental illness. He is still a young man and the Court should be informed about whether his future recovery from mental illness is likely to be jeopardised by media publication of the CCTV footage, bearing in mind the longevity of such material in the public sphere once it is released.

1. The Court is sometimes approached for release of exhibits after a trial has concluded.

1. In DPP v Bracken (Ruling No 16),[3] Maxwell P ruled against the release of police exhibits composed of CCTV footage after the jury had acquitted the accused of murder, on the basis that its release would be contrary to the public interest. His Honour considered that publication of the footage would have carried ‘a substantial risk of creating misunderstanding or misapprehension’[4] of the verdict by the public, who did not have the benefit of placing the footage within the context of the whole of the evidence adduced during the trial. His Honour considered that the risk could not be prevented by any other means than by refusing the request for the release of the footage.[5]

   [3][2014] VSC 96.

   [4]Ibid [22].

   [5]Ibid.

1. In R v Hemming (Ruling No 1)[6] and in DPP v Williams,[7] applications were made for the release of police interviews. Different statutory provisions govern the release of police audio or video material as discussed in those decisions, although there are some considerations in common with exhibits tendered during a criminal trial. Ultimately, each case throws up unique considerations to be considered in the light of the principle of open justice and the fair administration of justice.

   [6][2015] VSC 351 (King J).

   [7][2015] VSC 107 (Hollingworth J).

1. In light of the concerns expressed by Mr Tovey QC on behalf of his client, and the special considerations that may attach to Mr Woodhead as a result of the jury verdict, I was not persuaded that it was appropriate to release the CCTV footage following  the jury verdict being delivered.