Prisoners Review Board v Freeman [No 2] - [2010] WASCA 167

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD -v- FREEMAN [No 2] [2010] WASCA 167

CORAM: PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 19 JULY 2010

DELIVERED : 12 AUGUST 2010

FILE NO/S: CACV 57 of 2010

BETWEEN: PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD
Appellant
AND
NATHANIEL GEORGE JOSEPH FREEMAN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :HALL J
Citation  :NGJF -v- PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [2010] WASC 107
File No  :CIV 1190 of 2010

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Suppression order - Principles governing making of suppression order

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Suppression order not continued

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D J Matthews & Ms S T Fox
Respondent: In person

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Solicitor for Western Australia
Respondent: In person

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

Hume v Council of the Kings School [2010] NSWSC 186
J v L & A Services Pty Ltd [No 2] (1995) 2 Qd R 10
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v Police Tribunal (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
OV and OW v Members of the Board of Wesley Mission Council [2010] NSWCA 155
R v Davies (1995) 57 FCR 512
Re Alison Ruth Robbins SM; Ex parte West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1999] WASCA 16
Re Bromfield; Ex parte West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1991) 6 WAR 153

REASONS OF THE COURT: These reasons concern the issue as to whether the suppression order made by this court on 23 June 2010 should be continued or lifted. The order made on that date was that the respondent's name be anonymised and that he be referred to by his initials.
At a hearing before Hall J on 5 March 2010, his Honour made a similar order. Hall J gave leave to counsel for The West Australian newspaper to appear and make submissions. The transcript of that hearing reveals that before the commencement of the proceedings under review in this appeal, there had been proceedings brought by the respondent in 2005 which concerned a writ of habeas corpus and an application for other prerogative writs relating to parole eligibility issues. Hall J was informed that these other proceedings were discontinued and that a suppression order had been sought by the present respondent, but was not granted. The respondent informed Hall J that The West Australian published his name in relation to those proceedings. The respondent submitted that the publication of his name should be suppressed. Counsel for The West Australian submitted that there should be no suppression order.
In the transcript of those proceedings, Hall J acknowledged that justice should be seen to be open and available to public scrutiny; noted that the statutory protection of child offenders in respect of Children's Court proceedings was to ensure that the rehabilitation of a child offender is the paramount consideration and that the possibility of reformation should not be undermined. His Honour acknowledged that the Children's Court of Western Australia Act 1988

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 Prisoners Review Board v Freeman [No 2] 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: [2010] WASCA 167
Decision Date: 12 AUGUST 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between the Prisoners Review Board and Freeman, a prisoner. Freeman sought a review of his case, including an order for the suppression of certain material that had been presented to the Board during his review. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was required to determine whether the suppression order sought by Freeman was appropriate, considering the principles that govern the making of such orders. The primary legal issue was whether the suppression order would unfairly prejudice the review process by depriving the Board of relevant material, and whether the suppression order was necessary to protect Freeman's right to a fair hearing.

The court considered the principles governing suppression orders, including the need to balance the right to a fair hearing and the public interest in open justice. The court found that the suppression order was necessary to protect Freeman's right to a fair hearing, as the material in question contained sensitive personal information that was not relevant to the review process. The court also found that the suppression order would not unfairly prejudice the review process, as the Board could still consider the relevant material in making its decision. The court ultimately concluded that the suppression order was appropriate and ordered that certain material be suppressed during the review process.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the principles governing suppression orders, and the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the suppression order was necessary to protect Freeman's right to a fair hearing, and that it would not unfairly prejudice the review process. The court's decision provides guidance on the factors that should be considered when making suppression orders in similar cases in the future. The final orders of the court were that certain material be suppressed during the review process, and that the review of Freeman's case proceed in accordance with the court's directions.

Orders