DPP v Debs & Roberts

[2003] VSC 38

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1527 of 2001

Director of Public Prosecutions

v

Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts

Ruling No. 31

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	24 February 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 38

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – publication – application by media after conviction of accused to publish audio and video tapes in original form – application granted in part – ruling only.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr J.W. Rapke QC with Mr P.B. Kidd and Mr J.J. Serong	OPP
For the accused Debs	Mr P.C. Dane QC with Mr G. Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid
For the accused Roberts	Mr I.D. Hill QC with Ms S.K. Dawes	Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

1. Mr Quill does not, and did not on the last occasion, seek the release of the raw material of the Intergraph tapes for the reasons he stated at p.5508 and I agree with that.

1. Mr Quill does not seek the release of any raw material which was not played before the jury, and I agree with that.

1. Mr Quill has sought the release of the videos of the interviews of the respective accused at the Homicide Squad office.  I refuse that application.  I consider there are consequences of that application for future cases which, in the exercise of my discretion, militate against its release, here, together with the circumstance that each accused was in a custodial context at that stage, having been arrested, although answering questions voluntarily.

1. The telephone intercept material has not been the subject of extensive submission and there is a question of law there, as Mr Georgiou submitted, namely the relevant Commonwealth legislation and I would like to look at that, so I shall look at the legislation before I finalise that.

1. That leaves the listening device material.  In the exercise of my discretion I accede to Mr Quill's application.  I consider that the application is justified in the public interest.  My experience of the media is that it does fulfil its function of fair and accurate reporting.  The material has been played before the jury and I consider it is properly in the public domain and accordingly I authorise its release.

1. The circumstance that there are other parties to it is, of course, relevant, but those other parties did not appear before me on the last occasion nor on this occasion to make separate submissions, although they are picked up by the submissions of Mr Georgiou and Mr Hill as they have been made.

1. I will give detailed reasons with reference to the cases as soon as I am able, but I do accede to the application in relation to the raw material of the listening devices which have been played before the jury.

-----