EASTERDAY -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 175
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 175 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:111/1999 | 21 MAY 2001 | |
| Coram: | SCOTT J | 11/06/01 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Claim for privilege allowed in part | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CLARK ERVIN EASTERDAY THE QUEEN AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE LTD DEAN EDWARD IRELAND LEONARD LANCELOT IRELAND |
Catchwords: | Court's practice and procedure Early return of subpoena Claim for public interest immunity for confidential Australian Stock Exchange Ltd surveillance report documents Information sought available elsewhere Claim for privilege upheld in part only Prosecution arising out of alleged "salting" of mineral claim Referral to Court of Criminal Appeal under s140 Sentencing Act 1995 New or fresh evidence sought via subpoena |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995, s 140(1)(a) |
Case References: | Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404 CTC Resources NL v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd [2000] WASCA 19 Ireland & Anor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940233; 6 May 1994 R v Jumeaux, unreported; SCt of WA (Seaman J); Library No 940534; 22 September 1994 R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14 RAN v The Queen (1996) 16 WAR 448 Sankey v Whitlam & Ors (1978) 142 CLR 1 Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority v Maurice (1986) 10 FCR 104 ACC v The Daniels Corporation International Ltd [2001] FCA 244 Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 AG 394 Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404 Attorney General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667 Borg v Barnes (1987) 10 NSWLR 734 Carter v Hayes (1994) 61 SASR 451 Chapmans Ltd v ASX Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 501 Clifford v Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health [1999] VSC 359 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501 Connell v The Queen (No 6) (1994) 12 WAR 133 Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910 D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171 Duncan v Cammell Laird [1942] AC 624 Finch v Grieve (1991) 22 NSWLR 578 Gallagher v R (1986) 160 CLR 392 Ilic v R [2000] WASCA 411 Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 Malesecca & Zayler (1994) 74 A Crim R 210 Maloney v New South Wales National Coursing Association Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 60 Marks v Beyfus [1890] 25 QBD 494 Mickelberg v R (1989) 167 CLR 259 Middleton v WA (1996) 17 WAR 201 National Employer's Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 R v Agar [1990] 2 All ER 442 R v Clowes [1992] 3 All ER 440 R v Governor of Brixton Prison; ex parte Osman [1991] 1 WLR 281 R v Hallett [1986] Crim LR 462 R v J (No 1) (1994) 13 WAR 342 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Polley (1997) 68 SASR 227 R v Saleam [1999] NSW CCA 86; BC9902028 R v Ward [1993] 1… |
Continue reading Easterday v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Easterday v The Queen [2001] WASCA 175
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 175
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Easterday v The Queen, the appellant, Easterday, was convicted of a number of offences arising out of an alleged "salting" of a mineral claim. The case came before the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 140 of the Sentencing Act 1995, seeking to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether documents obtained by the Australian Stock Exchange Ltd (ASX) through surveillance were subject to public interest immunity and, if so, whether the prosecution could access them for the purposes of the appeal. The appellant argued that the documents were confidential and should be protected from disclosure, while the prosecution contended that the information sought was available elsewhere and the documents were not privileged.
The court considered whether the documents were subject to public interest immunity and, if so, whether the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the documents outweighed the need for the prosecution to access them for the purposes of the appeal. The court found that the documents were subject to public interest immunity but that the prosecution could access them to the extent necessary for the purposes of the appeal. The court held that the prosecution had not demonstrated that the information sought was not available elsewhere, and therefore, the claim for privilege was upheld in part only. The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial and the need for the prosecution to access the documents for the purposes of the appeal were both important considerations, and the balance between the two had to be carefully weighed.
The court allowed the claim for privilege in part and directed that the subpoena be returned to the Federal Magistrates Court for further consideration. The court held that the prosecution could access the documents to the extent necessary for the purposes of the appeal, but that the appellant's right to a fair trial and the need for the protection of confidential information had to be balanced against each other. The court found that the prosecution had not demonstrated that the information sought was not available elsewhere, and therefore, the claim for privilege was upheld in part only. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the competing interests of the appellant and the prosecution in cases where confidential information is sought for the purposes of an appeal.
The court considered whether the documents were subject to public interest immunity and, if so, whether the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the documents outweighed the need for the prosecution to access them for the purposes of the appeal. The court found that the documents were subject to public interest immunity but that the prosecution could access them to the extent necessary for the purposes of the appeal. The court held that the prosecution had not demonstrated that the information sought was not available elsewhere, and therefore, the claim for privilege was upheld in part only. The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial and the need for the prosecution to access the documents for the purposes of the appeal were both important considerations, and the balance between the two had to be carefully weighed.
The court allowed the claim for privilege in part and directed that the subpoena be returned to the Federal Magistrates Court for further consideration. The court held that the prosecution could access the documents to the extent necessary for the purposes of the appeal, but that the appellant's right to a fair trial and the need for the protection of confidential information had to be balanced against each other. The court found that the prosecution had not demonstrated that the information sought was not available elsewhere, and therefore, the claim for privilege was upheld in part only. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the competing interests of the appellant and the prosecution in cases where confidential information is sought for the purposes of an appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Claim for privilege allowed in part
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.