DPP v Farquharson (Ruling no 13)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1419 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ROBERT DONALD WILLIAM FARQUHARSON

Ruling No 13

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	5 October 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Farquharson (Ruling No 13)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 467

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – jury trial – request by media to publish certain exhibits after verdict – ruling thereon.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr J Rapke QC Ms A Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey Mr C Mylonas	Victoria Legal Aid

---

HIS HONOUR:

I am unpersuaded by Morrissey's submission that it either ought to be all or nothing. I think there is a legitimate and significant discrimination between the two categories that I have stated. I propose to decline the media request for the last three dot point items, that is the Farquharson police material and the Farquharson/King material, and I propose to accede to the media request for the first five dot points because it is non-personal material and accordingly that is what I rule.

If the media wish to controvert that and ask for the last three you are very welcome to come before the court and make a submission, but that is what I rule so that you know now because usually with the media things are fairly time critical and that is the ruling I make.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a ruling requested by the media regarding the publication of certain exhibits following a verdict in a murder trial. The defendant, Farquharson, was charged with the murder of his wife. The legal issues before the court involved the extent to which the media could publish specific exhibits, particularly those that were sensitive in nature, post-verdict. The court had to balance the public's right to know with the potential for harm or distress to individuals involved in the case.

The court considered the nature and content of the exhibits in question, assessing whether their publication would serve the public interest or cause unnecessary harm. The exhibits in question were divided into two categories: the first five points, which were deemed non-personal, and the last three points, which were considered personal and sensitive. The court concluded that the publication of the non-personal material would not cause significant harm and was in the public interest, whereas the sensitive material could potentially cause distress and was not necessary for public knowledge. The ruling therefore declined the media request to publish the last three points and allowed the publication of the first five points.

In making its ruling, the court emphasised the need to protect the privacy and dignity of individuals involved in criminal proceedings, while also recognising the importance of transparency and the public's right to information. The decision was grounded in a careful consideration of the potential impacts of the publication of each type of material. The court's ruling reflects a balanced approach that aims to uphold both the public's interest in knowing about criminal proceedings and the rights of individuals to maintain their privacy.

Orders of the court

decline the media request for the last three dot point items, that is the Farquharson police material and the Farquharson/King material, and I propose to accede to the media request for the first five dot points because it is non-personal material and accordingly that is what I rule

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established