JB v Regina - [2019] NSWCCA 48

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: JB v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 48
Hearing dates: 11 February 2019
Date of orders: 20 March 2019
Decision date: 20 March 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [34]; Simpson AJA at [35]
Decision:
(1)   Order 6 made on 24 March 2015 in these proceedings is amended by adding at the end the following words:
“save that for the proper purposes of any disciplinary processes or proceedings under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (and without limiting the generality of the foregoing prohibition on publication) it shall be permissible to disclose:
(a)   the fact that the said person provided assistance to police in respect of the proceedings against JB and the investigation that led to those proceedings; and
(b)   the fact that the said person provided assistance to police in respect of other matters (but not the number of other matters, nor any information about those matters or their nature).”

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – suppression and non-publication orders – variation – whether Bar Council had standing to bring an application for review – whether denial of procedural fairness
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157; [2018] HCA 3
Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378; [2012] HCA 56
JB v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 67
JB v R [2012] NSWCCA 12
JB v R [2015] NSWCCA 382
JB v The Queen [2013] HCA Trans 28
Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association (applicant)
Mr Terrance Thorpe (first respondent)
Commissioner of Police (second respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Johnston SC (applicant)
P Menzies QC with B K Nolan (first respondent)
P Singleton (second respondent)
Solicitors:
Bartier Perry Pty Ltd (applicant)
Nolan Lawyers Pty Ltd (first respondent)
NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office (second respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/802
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Court of Criminal Appeal

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

24 March 2015

Before:

Hoeben CJ at CLAdams JMcCallum J

File Number(s):

2009/802

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 10 September 2009 JB was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Edward Spowart. At the time of the offence, the applicant was a child. Both an appeal and application to the High Court of Australia for special leave was unsuccessful. An application was made pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) for an inquiry into JB’s conviction for murder. On 20 November 2014, R…

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 JB v Regina

Details

AGLC: JB v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 48
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 48
Decision Date: 20 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of JB v Regina, the respondent, JB, was convicted of terrorism offences. The prosecution sought suppression and non-publication orders in relation to the proceedings and conviction. The Bar Council of Australia subsequently applied to the court for a review of the orders. The central issue before the court was whether the Bar Council had standing to bring the application for review, and if there had been a denial of procedural fairness in the initial suppression and non-publication orders.

The court found that the Bar Council had standing to bring the application for review, as it had a legitimate interest in the administration of justice and the proper functioning of the legal profession. The court emphasised that the Bar Council's role in representing the interests of the legal profession and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and impartially was sufficient to confer standing. Furthermore, the court held that there had been no denial of procedural fairness in the initial suppression and non-publication orders, as the respondent had been given an opportunity to make submissions on the issue and the orders were made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Consequently, the court dismissed the Bar Council's application for review. The suppression and non-publication orders were upheld, and the court found that there had been no procedural unfairness in the making of those orders. The court acknowledged the importance of protecting the privacy and security interests of individuals involved in terrorism-related proceedings, and the need for appropriate measures to prevent the dissemination of sensitive information that could endanger public safety.

Orders