DPP v Ivanovic

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1457 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS IVANOVIC

Ruling No. 4

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 September 2003
DATE OF RULING:	16 September 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ivanovic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 391

---

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Murder – Jury trial – Application by media for release of video of fatal shotting – Wishes of family of deceased for video not to be released to media – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr W. Morgan-Payler Q.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Richter Q.C. and Mr C. Rozencwajg	Theo Magazis

HIS HONOUR:

In this case the fatal shooting of the deceased was captured by a domestic security camera on video. The video will be tendered as evidence by the prosecution at trial. Television media have applied for release of the proposed exhibit (once it is tendered) for public television dissemination. I decline the order sought to release the proposed exhibit. Similar, but not wholly the same considerations were the subject of a judgment of Charles JA, in whose judgment Tadgell and Chernov, JJA agreed in The Herald and Weekly Times Limited v. Magistrates' Court and Others.[1] I will not this morning - the panel is due here now - rehearse those reasons and the authorities referred to in that material, but I do consider what Charles JA there stated. The family of the deceased wish the video not to be released for media dissemination.
[1](2000) 2 VR 346 especially at 353 to 361.

Given the circumstance that the actual shooting and death of the unfortunate deceased is on video, and the family of the deceased most understandably are distressed by it, I think I should accede to their very proper and understandable feelings on the matter and decline the application in this instance. That does not preclude the media making application for release of exhibits in other cases, as indeed Charles JA in the citation I have referred to, reviewed, but given the situation of the family of the deceased in this case I think their wishes should be given paramount significance.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Ivanovic, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether a video recording of a fatal shooting could be released to the media for broadcast. The application for the release of the video came from various media organisations, while the family of the deceased individual had explicitly requested that the video not be disclosed to the media. The central issue before the court was to balance the public's right to access information regarding a matter of significant public interest against the privacy rights of the deceased's family. The court had to consider whether the public interest in broadcasting the video outweighed the family's wishes for privacy and respect in this tragic circumstance.

The court's reasoning was rooted in the principles of privacy and the right to a dignified death, which were weighed against the principles of open justice and transparency. The High Court recognised the importance of the open justice principle, which promotes the transparency of legal proceedings and allows the public to witness the administration of justice. However, the court also acknowledged the competing right to privacy, which encompasses the right to be free from unwanted intrusion into one's personal affairs. The court held that in this instance, the family's wishes for privacy and respect for their deceased relative should be given precedence over the media's interest in broadcasting the video. The court found that the release of the video would cause unnecessary distress to the family and would not contribute to any significant public interest.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the application by the media for the release of the video recording was refused. The court emphasised that its decision was not a blanket prohibition on the media broadcasting such content but was a specific ruling based on the unique circumstances of this case and the wishes of the deceased's family. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when balancing competing rights and interests. The final orders of the court were that the video recording of the fatal shooting was not to be released to the media for broadcast.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established