R v Charbaji, Azam; Charbaji, Haysem; Jamieson, Lexy May (No 2)

[2016] NSWSC 1863

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Charbaji, Azam; Charbaji, Haysem; Jamieson, Lexy May (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1863
Hearing dates:	5 October 2016
Date of orders:	05 October 2016
Decision date:	05 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Rothman J
Decision:	Suppression order on the name or anything that would identify one or other of the sons of Lexy Jamieson.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – innocent son of accused mentioned in evidence – infant not witness or accused – suppression order of infants’ names issued.
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Azam Charbaji (Co-accused) Haysem Charbaji (Co-accused) Lexy May Jamieson (Co-accused)
Representation:	Counsel: M Cunneen SC (Crown) K Chapple SC (Co-accused, Azam Charbaji) M Austin (Co-accused, Haysem Charbaji) M Shaw (Co-accused, Jamieson)     Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Alexander Lawyers (Co-accused, Azam Charbaji) Oxford Lawyers (Co-accused, Haysem Charbaji) Blair Lawyers (Co-accused, Jamieson)
File Number(s):	2015/5665; 2015/5907; 2015/26215
Publication restriction:	NON PUBLICATION ORDER IN RELATION TO INFANT SONS OF ACCUSED JAMIESON

EX-TEMPORE Judgment (UNREVISED)

1. HIS HONOUR: Ms Jamieson, or counsel on her behalf, has raised an issue with which I have great sympathy; namely, the fact that her son’s name is mentioned in these transcripts, and fears that the mention of her son’s name in the transcript of the intercepts, and in the intercepts themselves, may lead to repercussions for an infant or juvenile that are beyond anything to do with the criminal justice system and ought be an inappropriate result of the proper conduct of the criminal justice system.

2. It has been submitted that we should delete the name from the transcript and the recordings. The difficulty with that approach, with which I earlier expressed great sympathy, is that it will necessarily blur about whom the accused, Ms Jamieson, is speaking, unless it were possible, which in my view it is not, to substitute the words “my son” each time the name was used, it would lead to some significant confusion.

3. Nevertheless, I earlier expressed the view that I had significant sympathy with the application and we ought to obviate an inappropriate result of the criminal justice system.

4. I am not absolutely certainly that the Act applies to require the non-publication of Ms Jamieson’s son because the son is neither a witness nor an accused.

5. However, it seems to me most appropriate for me to make an order that the name of Ms Jamieson’s son, wherever used in these proceedings, that includes the evidence that has already been adduced and wherever to be used in these proceedings not be published, nor anything that would identify him by name as a result of these proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 20 December 2016