DPP v Prasoeur - [2006] VSC 40

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1425 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PISEY PRASOEUR

---
RULING

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4, 25 November 2005
DATE OF RULING:	16 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Prasoeur
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 40

---

Application by media organisation for access to exhibits in criminal trial – police photographs and emergency service recording - offender’s personal notebooks – offender young and severely depressed - open justice – legitimate interest of media organisation in publication – interest of offender and community in offender’s rehabilitation – balancing the interests – publication of notebooks would prejudice offender’s chances of rehabilitation – application for access to notebooks refused – application otherwise granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr D Trapnell and Mr S Reid	Mr S Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Mr J Dickinson	Balmer & Associates
For Nine Network Australia Pty Limited	Mr J Quill	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

HIS HONOUR:

Pisey Prasoeur was on 17 September 2005 convicted of the crime of murder and is awaiting sentence.[1]
[1]The circumstances of the offence and the considerations taken into account in the sentence will be set out in the sentence to be published on 17 February 2006 as Director of Public Prosecutions v Prasoeur [2006] VSC 41.

Nine Network Australia Pty Limited makes application for access to the following exhibits:

1 Forensic photographs numbered 40 and 156 – 159 inclusive in exhibit 5.

2 The audio recording of the triple 0 call taken on the morning of the murder from the 19 second point commencing with and including the words of Mr Peter Pochopien “someone shot my wife in front of my home” down to the 24 second point ending with and including the operators words “OK, well, stay calm” in exhibit P9.

3 The notebooks of Mr Prasoeur in exhibits P19 – P31.

In each case it is necessary to balance the interest of the media organisation in access to the exhibits against any proper countervailing interest.

The media organisation wishes to obtain access to the exhibits so that it can publish their contents or take copies or pictures of the exhibits and publish these. These are legitimate media purposes of fundamental importance to the administration of open justice. I should give effect to this interest and allow the access sought unless there is an outweighing countervailing interest.

In relation to the nominated forensic photographs, Channel 9 has not asked to be granted access to pictures of the body of the deceased or other pictures of a similar kind. There are no countervailing interests and I grant access to the photographs.

In relation to the nominated part of the triple 0 recording, Channel 9 has limited its request to the opening part. It has not requested access to the recording of the harrowing events that follow. These are described in my sentence of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Prasoeur

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Prasoeur [2006] VSC 40
Case: [2006] VSC 40
Decision Date: 16 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for an order to prevent a media organisation from accessing certain exhibits in the trial of Prasoeur. The exhibits in question were police photographs, an emergency service recording, and the offender's personal notebooks. The media organisation sought access to the notebooks to facilitate their publication, citing an interest in the open justice principle. The offender was young and severely depressed at the time of the offence, and the court considered the potential impact of the publication on the offender's rehabilitation and the interests of the community. The court had to balance the media organisation's legitimate interest in publication against the interests of the offender and the community.

The court considered the principles of open justice and the role of the media in ensuring transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system. However, the court also recognised the importance of protecting the rehabilitation interests of young offenders, particularly those who are severely depressed. The court held that the publication of the notebooks could prejudice the offender's chances of rehabilitation and potentially lead to a negative impact on the community. The court held that the offender's interest in rehabilitation and the community's interest in the successful rehabilitation of young offenders outweighed the media organisation's interest in publication.

The court granted the media organisation's application for access to the police photographs and the emergency service recording, as these exhibits did not pose the same risk to the offender's rehabilitation. However, the court refused the application for access to the notebooks, as the potential harm to the offender's rehabilitation outweighed the media organisation's interest in publication. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the rehabilitation interests of young offenders, particularly those who are vulnerable and in need of support. The court held that the open justice principle must be balanced against other important considerations, such as the interests of the offender and the community.

The court made an order that the media organisation could access the police photographs and the emergency service recording, but not the offender's personal notebooks. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the rehabilitation interests of young offenders and balancing the open justice principle against other important considerations. The court held that the potential harm to the offender's rehabilitation outweighed the media organisation's interest in publication, and that the community's interest in the successful rehabilitation of young offenders was paramount.

Orders