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

V

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:

1. 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.

1. 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.

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

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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 Mr Prasoeur.  There is no likelihood that publication of the opening part will deter persons from calling triple 0 in subsequent cases.  A grant of access will result in publication of a small portion of the tape only.  Channel 9 has behaved responsibly in limiting its request so as to minimise the intrusion into the privacy of the deceased and her husband.  Any infringement of the right of privacy of Mr Pochopien will be minor and he has not submitted that he opposes the limited access sought.  In the circumstances there is no sufficient countervailing interest and I will grant Channel 9 the access that it seeks to the triple 0 recording.

1. In relation to Mr Prasoeur’s notebooks, these were written up by him in the period running up to the murder.  The contents are the writings of a severely depressed young man lost in his own world.  The writings are deeply personal and some parts can only be described as ravings.  There are several third parties named and private telephone numbers given.  The notebooks were obtained during a police search under a warrant.  Publication of pictures of the notebooks would expose Mr Prasoeur to ridicule.  I am concerned about the impact of the publication of pictures of the notebooks upon his health.  The contents of the notebooks have been described in the evidence and there are no orders preventing publication of these descriptions.  But publication of pictures stands in a different category because it would graphically display the state of Mr Prasoeur’s inner mind.  That is the very reason that Channel 9 wants to obtain pictures of the notebooks.  Because Mr Prasoeur is a comparatively young offender, the Court must take his prospects of rehabilitation into account in sentencing him.  This consideration is also relevant as a countervailing interest in the context of the present application.  The community has as much an interest in Mr Prasoeur’s rehabilitation as he does himself.  I do not think his prospects of rehabilitation will be enhanced, and will probably be prejudiced, by publication, and possible later republication, of pictures of the notebooks.  There may have been previous publication of the parts of the notebooks but this does not appear to have been extensive.  I acknowledge the weight of the interest that Channel 9 has in publication of pictures of the notebooks.  Channel 9 has as at least as much an interest in publication of pictures of the notebooks, for which it needs access to the nominated exhibits, as it does in publication of their contents generally.  However I am of the view that the other interests I have mentioned, particularly the interests of Mr Prasoeur and the community in his rehabilitation, outweigh that interest.  I will therefore refuse access to the notebooks.

1. I grant access to Nine Network Australia Pty Limited to the following exhibits:

1         Forensic photographs numbers 40 and 156 – 159 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 and including the 24 second point with the operators words “OK, well, stay calm” in exhibit P9.

1. I otherwise refuse the application.

------