Melva Jean Roberts v South Australian Telecasters Ltd No. SCGRG 93/2518 Judgment No. 4410 Number of Pages 2 Costs

[1994] SASC 4410

COURT IN THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA KING CJ(1), BOLLEN(2) AND MULLIGHAN(3) JJ

CWDS
Costs - Appeal against refusal of suppression order pursuant to s.69B Evidence Act - media respondent - appeal unsuccessful - considerations governing costs. Evidence Acts.69B. Roget v Flavel (1987-88) 47 SASR 402, considered.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 10 February 1994 #DATE 10:2:1994

Counsel for appellant:     Mr S C Ey

Solicitors for appellant:    Mangan Ey and Associates Pty Ltd

Counsel for respondent:     Mr N J T Swan

Solicitors for respondent: Finlaysons

JUDGE1 KING CJ The appellant in this matter was a potential witness in a trial in the District Court on a charge against her son. She applied to the judge in the District Court for an order suppressing her name and any information which might lead to her identity including the name of the accused. The judge refused that application. The appellant appealed to this court.

2. When the case was called on this morning, counsel for the appellant indicated that the appeal was abandoned and it was accordingly dismissed.

3. Counsel for the respondent applied for costs. That application was opposed by counsel for the appellant. He contended that special considerations apply to appeals against refusal of suppression orders and he relied upon the decision of Cox J in Roget v Flavell 1987-88 47 SASR 402. Cox J in that judgment, although he adverted to special considerations which may apply to the cost of appeals where a section of the media is the respondent applying for costs, was at pains to make it clear that he did not purport to lay down any general principles with respect to such appeals.

4. The ordinary principle on an appeal is that costs follow the event, but there is a discretion in the appellate court to make a different order, that is to say to refuse costs, or to make an order for something less than the full costs, if it thinks proper to do so having regard to the circumstances of the matter.

5. I do not think that any hard and fast rule can be laid down as to costs of unsuccessful appeals with the media as respondent. It is necessary to consider each case on its merits. 2 This was a case in which a potential witness, the mother of the accused, sought to secure the suppression not only of her name but the name of the accused, on grounds of hardship, grounds which would not, of course, have been open to the accused. That the appeal was without merit is demonstrated by the fact it was abandoned and there was no argument expressed to the court in support of it.

6. I think in the circumstances that the proper order is that there be an order for costs. I order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

JUDGE2 BOLLEN J I agree.

JUDGE3 MULLIGHAN J I agree.