L v ABC - [2005] NTSC 5

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List] L v ABC & Ors [2005] NTSC 5

PARTIES: L

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
DAVID LOADMAN SM
PAUL TUDOR-STACK

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: No 14 of 2005 (20502695)

PARTIES: L

PAUL TUDOR-STACK

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FILE NO: JA 9/05 (20424339)

DELIVERED: 11 February 2005

HEARING DATES: 3 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF: MILDREN J

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – suppression order – Evidence Act s 57 – relevant test – whether desirable that name be suppressed in interests of justice – plaintiff facing two sets of criminal proceedings – name suppressed in respect of proceedings brought by complaint to ensure fair trial in indictable proceedings.

Criminal Code (NT) s 125B(1)(a); Criminal Law Consolidation Act; Evidence Act s 4, s 5, s 57, s 57(1), s 58; Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 19(b)

Justice Virginia Bell, How to Preserve the Integrity of Jury Trials in a Mass Media Age, (unpublished paper delivered at the Supreme and Federal Court Judges’ Conference – Darwin, January 2005)

Advertiser Newspapers Ltd v Bunting & Ors [2000] SASC 458; Director of Public Prosecutions v Carl Williams & Ors [2004] VSC 209; G v The Queen (1984) 35 SASR 349; John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor v District Court of NSW & Ors [2004] NSWCA 324; Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v McGregor & Ors [2004] NTSC 27; R v K [2003] NSWCCA 406; 59 NSWLR 43; R v Skaf [2004] NSWCCA 37; 60 NSWLR 86; referred to

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: M. Grant
ABC: R. Whitington QC
Loadman SM: C. Smyth
Tudor-Stack: M. Carey

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Priestleys
ABC: Clayton Utz
Loadman SM: Solicitor for the NT
Tudor-Stack: DPP

Judgment category classification: A
Number of pages: 15

L v ABC & Ors [2005] NTSC 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

No. 14 of 2005 (20502695)

BETWEEN:

L
Plaintiff

AND:

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
DAVID LOADMAN SM
PAUL TUDOR-STACK
Defendants

JA 9/05 (20424339)

BETWEEN:

L
Appellant

AND:

PAUL TUDOR-STACK
Respondent

CORAM: MILDREN J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 11 February 2005)

[1] In matter No 19 of 2005 the plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the determination of Mr Loadman SM made on 25 January 2005 to lift a suppression order made by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction constituted by another magistrate made on 11 January 2005. The original suppression order forbade the publication of the name of the plaintiff and any details likely to lead to his identification until further order in respect of proceedings brought against the plaintiff by complaint dated 7 December 2004. Alternatively the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction or pursuant to s 57 of the Evidence Act forbidding until further order…

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 L v ABC

Details

AGLC: L v ABC [2005] NTSC 005
Case: [2005] NTSC 5
Decision Date: 11 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory involved the plaintiff, L, who sought to suppress his name and any identifying details in connection with a charge of possession of child pornography. The application was opposed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The plaintiff faced two sets of criminal proceedings: one for the possession of child pornography and another for sexual offences that allegedly occurred many years ago. The court was asked to decide whether a suppression order should be made under s 57 of the Evidence Act to protect the plaintiff's right to a fair trial.

The court considered whether the suppression order was desirable in the interests of justice, weighing the principles of open justice against the need to ensure a fair trial. The court noted that the publication of the plaintiff's name in relation to the child pornography charge could prejudice the trial of the sexual offences, given the strong public sentiment against such crimes and the plaintiff's prominent status. The court concluded that the potential for prejudice outweighed the principle of open justice and that it was desirable to suppress the plaintiff's name to protect his right to a fair trial. Consequently, the court made an order under s 57 of the Evidence Act forbidding the publication of the plaintiff's name in connection with the complaint proceedings until further order. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for certiorari was refused. The court will hear the parties on the issue of costs.

Orders