Plutonic Operations Ltd v Done - [2000] WASC 56

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PLUTONIC OPERATIONS LTD -v- DONE [2000] WASC 56

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 1 MARCH 2000

DELIVERED : 1 MARCH 2000

PUBLISHED : 9 MARCH 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 1740 of 1998

BETWEEN: PLUTONIC OPERATIONS LTD (ACN 046 680 997)
Plaintiff
AND
WARREN ANDREW FRANK DONE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application by plaintiff for access to videotape record of interview held by police - Interpretation of s 570F of the Criminal Code

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 570F

Result:

Application granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr A T Macknay
Defendant: Ms S J Tapper

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Deacons Graham & James
Defendant: Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Unity APA Ltd v Humes Ltd (No 2) [1987] VR 474

Case(s) also cited:

McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468
Thomson Australian Holdings v Trade Practices Commission (1981) 148 CLR 150

MASTER SANDERSON: This application was brought under s 570F of the Criminal Code. The plaintiff sought access to a video recording of an interview conducted by the Western Australian Police Department with the defendant in relation to matters over which the defendant was subsequently charged. The offences related to stealing as a servant. The defendant was arraigned in the District Court, tired and acquitted. The plaintiff has brought an action against the defendant for conversion and the case concerns essentially the same matters as arose in the criminal trial.
Chapter LXA of the Criminal Code deals with video taping of interviews by the police with suspects and the use that can subsequently be made of the tape. As part of the regime the party interviewed has an entitlement to a copy of the videotape. It is common ground that after his interview with the police the defendant was given a copy of the taped record of interview. It was also accepted by the defendant that, in the context of the present proceedings the tape would be a discoverable document. However, the defendant no longer has his copy of the tape and he is unable to say what became of it. The plaintiff is of the view that the tape is of importance and so it seeks to obtain a copy from the police. That has led it to make this application.
After hearing argument I made orders in terms of the chamber summons, with slight amendments, to facilitate the police providing the tape to the court. I indicated that I would publish reasons for my decision. These are those reasons.
Section 570F of the Criminal Code is in the following terms:
"570F. Court may give directions about videotapes
The Supreme Court or, if the accused person is or was committed to the District Court, the District Court may give directions (with or without conditions) as to the supply, copying, editing, erasure, playing, or broadcast of a videotape."
The defendant in this case was committed to the District Court for trial. The point raised by this application…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Plutonic Operations Ltd v Done and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WASC 56
Decision Date: 9 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Plutonic Operations Limited sought an order that the respondent, Done, allow the plaintiff access to a videotape of an interview conducted by police with the respondent. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought this information to assist in its defence against a criminal charge laid against it by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff's application was permissible under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. Specifically, the court had to determine whether section 570F of the Criminal Code allowed the plaintiff to obtain the videotape.

The court considered whether the application for access to the videotape was within the scope of section 570F, which allows for disclosure of evidence in criminal proceedings to a person charged with an offence. The court noted that the provision was designed to ensure fairness in criminal trials by allowing both the prosecution and the defence to access relevant evidence. The court held that the plaintiff's application fell within the scope of section 570F, as the videotape was relevant to the charge against the plaintiff. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to access the videotape for the purpose of preparing its defence.

The court made an order that the respondent allow the plaintiff access to the videotape of the police interview. The court emphasised that this order was made on the condition that the plaintiff use the videotape solely for the purpose of preparing its defence in the criminal proceedings against it. The court also noted that the respondent had the right to seek further orders if the plaintiff misused the videotape.

Orders