R v Collie (No 2) No. Sccrm-02-67 - [2002] SASC 247

R v COLLIE (No. 2)
[2002] SASC 247
SUPPRESSION ORDER

GRAY J
Background

Garry John Collie was jointly charged with two counts of murder.[1] He was further charged with common assault.[2] A magistrate refused bail. An application to review that order was dismissed.[3]
[1]The information was in the following terms
“On the 19^th day of February 2002 at Parafield Gardens in the said State [Garry John Collie] murdered John Douglas Powers. Section 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.
On the 19^th day of February 2002 at Parafield Gardens in the said State [Garry John Collie] murdered Leila Hoppo. Section 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.”
[2] The complaint was in the following terms:
[3] R v Collie [2002] SASC 131
During the review hearing the court received various statements and a summary of the Crown allegations. This was said to be an incomplete statement of the Crown case provided for the purposes of the application. Reference was also made to the applicant’s criminal and personal antecedents.
By consent an interim suppression order was made of the entire review proceedings except for the fact of the application and the result. Both counsel later submitted that the order should be continued. Members of the press (“the press”) who were present in court opposed the initial order and its continuance. It was said that similar submissions had been put to the magistrate. These had not been suppressed and media publication had occurred without complaint. The press argued that any prejudice which resulted from further publication could be addressed by the trial judge’s directions. It was said that the public interest in publishing the material outweighed any prejudice that might arise and that it would be wrong for this court to adopt a conservative approach.
Section 69A
When considering whether to make or continue a suppression order the court is required to balance a number of interests. Section 69A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) (“the Act”) identifies specific needs which must be protected. There is a need to prevent undue hardship to alleged victims and witnesses, and to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. There is also a legitimate public interest in keeping the community informed about court proceedings.
Section 69A provides:
“ (1) Where a court is satisfied that a suppression order should be made —
(a)    to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice; or
(b)    to prevent undue hardship —
(i)     to an alleged victim of crime; or
(ii)to a witness or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings who is not a party to those proceedings; or
...
the court may, subject to this section, make such an order.
(2) Where the question of making a suppression order (other than an interim suppression order) is under consideration by a court —
(a)    the public interest in publication of information related to court
proceedings, and the consequential right of the news media to publish such information, must be recognised as considerations…

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 R v Collie (No 2) No. Sccrm-02-67 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: [2002] SASC 247
Decision Date: 30 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collie (No 2) No. Sccrm-02-67 involved Garry John Collie, who was charged with multiple criminal offences, including murder and assault. The court was tasked with making a decision regarding the suppression of certain aspects of the legal proceedings and the continuation of a suppression order. The suppression order pertained to the publication of the bail review application, the evidence, and submissions made during the case. The court was required to decide whether to continue the suppression order and what aspects of the proceedings should remain suppressed from public view.

The legal issues before the court were centered on the balance between the public's right to know and the rights of the accused under the law. The court had to consider the precedents set by previous cases such as R v Cooper and the principles outlined in GT Trotter's The Law of Bail in Canada. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the impact of the suppression order on Collie's right to a fair trial and the potential prejudice that could arise from the publication of specific details of the case.

In reaching its decision, the court noted the gravity of the charges against Collie and the potential impact of public exposure to the details of the case on the fairness of the trial. The court found that the suppression order should be continued to protect Collie's right to a fair trial and to prevent any prejudicial information from influencing the public or potential jurors. The court ruled that while the fact of the applications and the orders made could be published, the specifics of the evidence and submissions should remain suppressed. This decision was made in the interest of justice and to uphold the integrity of the legal process.

The final orders of the court were that the suppression order be continued, with specific details of the bail review application, evidence, and submissions suppressed from publication. The fact of the applications and the orders made were allowed to be published. The reasons for the court's decision were also to be made public, ensuring transparency in the judicial process while protecting the rights of the accused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The order of the court is that the suppression order be continued. The hearing of the application for bail review, the evidence and submissions made and all related matters are suppressed from publication. The fact of the applications and the orders made are not suppressed. These reasons are not suppressed.LIST OF CITATIONS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE JUDGMENT1 The information was in the following terms“On the 19th day of February 2002 at Parafield Gardens in the said State [Garry John Collie] murdered John Douglas Powers. Section 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.On the 19th day of February 2002 at Parafield Gardens in the said State [Garry John Collie] murdered Leila Hoppo. Section 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.”2 The complaint was in the following terms: “On the 21st day of January, 2002 at ADELAIDE in the said State [Garry John Collie] assaulted Mark Stokes.” Section 39 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.3 R v Collie [2002] SASC 131 4 (2001) 212 LSJS 12 at 175R v Cooper 1999 AABQB 553GT Trotter, The Law of Bail in Canada (2nd ed, 1999)

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.