R v Casey Georgeson (a pseudonym) - [2023] ACTSC 354

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Casey Georgeson (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 354
Hearing Date:	15 November 2023
Decision Date:	15 November 2023
Reasons Date:	28 November 2023
Before:	Baker J
Decision:	See [19].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – non-publication orders – application to continue non-publication order under s 111 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – where accused is to participate in reverse caution interview – whether non-publication order is required for administration of justice – consent of both parties to making of order – non-publication order continued.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11(1), 307(1) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 111
Cases Cited:	Bond v the Queen (1992) 62 A Crim R 383 DPP v Cheng [2018] VCC 1399 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 Monday (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 25; 369 FLR 99 R v Meegan [2014] ACTSC 263 Raybos Australia Pty Ltd v Jones (1985) 2 NSWLR 47
Parties:	The King ( Crown) Casey Georgeson (a pseudonym) ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel M Hassall ( Crown) J Moffett ( Accused)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Andrew Byrnes Law Group ( Accused)
File Number:	SCC 124 of 2022

BAKER J:

Introduction

1․On 15 November 2023, I made orders continuing a non-publication order which prohibited the publication of any information that may identify the accused. I also continued orders allocating a pseudonym to the accused. These are my reasons for so ordering.
2․By indictment dated 31 October 2021, the accused, Casey Georgeson, was charged with the following offence:
(a)Count 1 (SCAN447/2023): attempt to possess a substance, the substance being unlawfully imported, the substance being a border-controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, and the quantity being a commercial quantity, contrary to ss 11.1(1) and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

3․This was the fourth indictment laid against the accused. It replaced three previous iterations of the indictment, each of which had charged the accused with the same offence by way of joint commission with a co-accused (the former co-accused). Other iterations of the indictment had charged the former co-accused and another accused with separate offences that were not alleged against the present accused. The trials of the former co-accused and the other accused have now been severed from the accused’s trial.
4․On 14 November 2023, counsel for the accused contacted the Court advising that the accused intended to enter a plea of guilty to the offence charged in the 31 October 2021 indictment. Counsel requested that the matter be urgently listed for arraignment. Counsel also requested that the listing not be publicised, and that the accused’s former co-accused not be informed of the listing.
5․On 14 November 2023, I listed the matter before myself on 15 November 2023 for arraignment and made the following orders:
(1)Pursuant to…

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 R v Casey Georgeson (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Casey Georgeson (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 354
Case: [2023] ACTSC 354
Decision Date: 15 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Casey Georgeson, the parties involved were the accused, identified pseudonymously as Casey Georgeson, and the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred on the continuation of a non-publication order that had initially been made under section 111 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) to prevent the identification of the accused during the criminal proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the non-publication order should be continued to allow the accused to participate in a reverse caution interview. The court had to consider whether the continuation of the non-publication order was necessary to ensure the administration of justice, particularly in light of the accused's consent to the continuation of the order and the potential benefits of the reverse caution interview for the case. The court was required to balance the accused's right to a fair trial with the need to prevent any prejudicial publication that might interfere with the trial process.

The court determined that the non-publication order should be continued. The reasoning was based on the fact that both parties to the proceedings, including the accused, consented to the continuation of the order. The court found that the order was necessary to prevent any prejudicial publication that could impact the fairness of the trial. Additionally, the court considered the potential benefits of the reverse caution interview, which could provide valuable insights and evidence in the case. The court concluded that the advantages of the interview outweighed any potential prejudice to the accused, and thus, the non-publication order was justified.

The final orders included the continuation of the non-publication order to allow the accused to participate in the reverse caution interview, subject to the terms and conditions set out by the court. The specific terms of the order were detailed in the court's judgment, ensuring that the order was tailored to protect the administration of justice while respecting the rights of the accused.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.