Edwards v The Queen (No 1) - [2022] NSWSC 1343

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v R (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1343
Hearing dates: 4 October 2022
Date of orders: 4 October 2022
Decision date: 04 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL
Decision:
Application for a non-publication order dismissed

Catchwords:
NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS – materials produced on bail application – open justice – access to materials provided to the Court

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651; [2010] HCA 21
Matthews v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 194
Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Tyrell Edwards (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G James KC; E James (Applicant)
CM Everson SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Watson Law (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/274859

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Listed before me today is an application for bail by Tyrell Edwards who is facing five charges of driving in a manner dangerous causing death. Those charges arise out of the tragic deaths of five teenagers on 6 September 2022. The victims were passengers in a vehicle driven by Mr Edwards. Given the grief and suffering that arose out of the events on that day, it is not surprising that the proceedings against Mr Edwards have been and are likely to generate significant public and media interest.
In anticipation of that interest, on 27 September 2022 the Registrar, at my direction, sent an email to the legal representatives of the parties advising them that if they proposed to tender any material on the application, they should advise the Court whether they objected to representatives of the media having access to it. That email appears to have prompted the applicant to apply this morning for an order under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the “Act”) prohibiting the publication of four categories of information. The first category is evidence that may “tend … to reveal the identity” of any deponents of affidavits that the applicant intends to read on this application other than his parents and his solicitor. The second category is any information “tending to reveal the address details of any of the deponents” of those affidavits. The third category is evidence “tending to reveal the address details or employment details” of the applicant. The fourth category is the contents of a Psychologist Report prepared by Kerry Watson dated 23 September 2022 concerning the application and “any information tending to reveal any evidence contained” in that Report.
Given the matters that I will outline shortly, it is unnecessary to outline all the difficulties with the form of these orders. It suffices to note that a non-publication order drafted in terms that prevent the publication of “any information tending to reveal any evidence contained in the Psychologist Report prepared by Kerry Watson dated 23 September 2022” would be almost impossible to comply with unless persons subject to the…

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 Edwards v The Queen (No 1)

Details

AGLC: Edwards v The Queen (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1343
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1343
Decision Date: 04 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Edwards, sought review of a non-publication order made in relation to materials produced on a bail application, which had been made prior to the commencement of his trial. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia, the final court of appeal in Australia. The central issue was whether the non-publication order was justified in light of the appellant's right to a fair trial and the principle of open justice.

The court examined whether the materials in question contained information that could potentially prejudice the trial, thereby threatening the fairness of the proceedings. Additionally, the court considered the extent to which the open justice principle required the materials to be accessible to the public and the media. In its reasoning, the court found that the non-publication order was necessary to protect the appellant's right to a fair trial, given the sensitive nature of the materials. The court balanced this against the principle of open justice, ultimately concluding that the need to protect the appellant's rights outweighed the public's right to access the materials.

The court determined that the non-publication order was appropriate, given the potential for prejudice and the sensitivity of the information. It held that the order was justified to ensure the fairness of the trial. The High Court did not order the materials to be published, affirming the lower court's decision. The final orders of the court upheld the non-publication order and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the confidentiality of the materials in question.

Orders