R v Christos Tsekas (No. 2)

[2018] NSWDC 188

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Christos Tsekas (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 188
Hearing dates:	9-10 July 2018
Decision date:	13 July 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Access granted to transcript of ERISP interview and some crime scene photographs. For Orders see [18].
Catchwords:	Application by non-parties for access to material held by the court
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	R v Abdallah (No. 3) [2015] NSWSC 121 R v Brewer (No. 1) [2015] NSWSC 1471 R v Elomar (No. 3) [2008] NSWSC 1443
Category:	Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Christos Tsekas (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: A Hawkins (Crown) S Fraser (Accused)
File Number(s):	16/286965
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment ON APPLICATION by a non-party for access to material held by the court

1. On 9 and 10 July 2018, a special hearing was held pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 in respect of a charge pursuant to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900, that on 25 September 2016 the accused did wound Paul Raymond Jay with intent to murder the said Paul Raymond Jay. An alternative Count was brought against the accused pursuant to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

2. During the hearing, three applications were received from the same media organisation, being Channel 7 News Sydney. The first two applications were brought by a journalist, Mr Evan Batten. The first sought access to the ERISP interview of the accused. The second sought access to both the ERISP interview and “still photos of the knife, plus any other photos”.

3. The third application was brought by Ms Leonie Ryan. It sought access to first, the Police Facts Sheet (in case of a guilty plea), and secondly, the Police interview and transcript. As there was no plea of guilty, no Police Facts Sheet existed. The police interview and transcript comprised the accused’s ERISP interview DVD (Ex A.9), and the transcript of that interview (Ex B).

4. The three applications therefore relate to the ERISP interview of the accused, the transcript of that interview and photographs of the knife, plus any other photographs.

5. On Friday 13 July 2018, I delivered my verdict on the special hearing of not guilty by reason of mental illness, in respect of Count 1. No verdict was required on the Alternative Count 2.

6. At the conclusion of the special hearing, I sought submissions from the parties in respect of the applications for access brought by the non-parties referred to above. Learned counsel for the accused opposed access being given to the media organisation to the DVD of the accused’s ERISP interview, however, access to the transcript of that interview was not opposed. In respect of the photographs, those of the victim contained in the brief, were very graphic and counsel opposed access to those photographs. The balance of photographs fell into two categories. First, the photographs of…