R v Crupi - [2019] VSC 810

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0245

THE QUEEN

VINCENZO CRUPI

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 December 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 December 2019 Revised on 12 February 2021 by the addition of n 25
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Crupi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 810

---

OPEN COURTS – Application for suppression and closed court orders – Application for non-publication order – Whether non-publication order necessary to prevent prejudice to administration of justice – Whether non-publication order necessary to protect safety of any person – Whether non-publication order would be ineffective – Open Courts Act 2013, s 18(1)(a) and (c).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms D Karamicov	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	No appearance
For the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police	Ms S Maharaj QC with Ms K Chan	Victorian Government Solicitors Office
Amici curiae	Mr R B C Wilson with Ms E Nikou Madalin

HIS HONOUR:

In the early hours of 15 March 2016, Joseph Acquaro, a solicitor, was shot three times as he walked towards his car on St Phillip Street, Brunswick East. On 14 November 2019, the accused was committed to stand trial for the murder of Mr Acquaro.

The Crown case is that the accused shot Mr Acquaro. The accused denies this. As part of his defence, the accused will contend at trial that Mr Acquaro was a police informer and there is a reasonable possibility that he was shot by, or at the instigation of, someone who believed that Mr Acquaro had informed on them to the police.

In the course of the committal proceeding, a witness summons was issued on behalf of the accused which resulted in the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police producing to the court and the parties a number of documents that disclosed the fact that Mr Acquaro did in fact provide information about a number of people to police.

By an application filed 22 November 2019, the Chief Commissioner seeks an order prohibiting the disclosure by publication or otherwise of material produced following the issuing of the witness summons, to the extent that such material discloses the extent of Mr Acquaro’s contact with Victoria Police.[1] The order sought, however, would permit disclosure of such material in limited circumstances, including to the Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants.
[1]While the terms of the relief sought in the Chief Commissioner’s application are more elaborate, the above description is sufficient for present purposes.

The parties and their cases

In order to protect the subject matter of the Chief Commissioner’s application, an order was made that the application be heard in closed court. Evidence was tendered on affidavit on behalf of the Chief Commissioner, and written submissions were received from the Chief Commissioner and counsel who had been appointed amici curiae.[2]
[2]On 29 November 2019, Hollingworth J appointed the amici in relation to the Chief Commissioner’s application.

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 Crupi

Details

AGLC: R v Crupi [2019] VSC 810
Case: [2019] VSC 810
Decision Date: 11 December 2019 Revised on 12 February 2021 by the addition of n 25

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crupi, the appellant, an individual charged with a serious criminal offence, applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for suppression and closed court orders. The applicant sought these orders to prevent the publication of certain details of the proceedings, specifically those that could potentially prejudice the administration of justice or protect the safety of any person involved. The case hinged on whether the application for non-publication orders was warranted under the provisions of the Open Courts Act 2013, particularly sections 18(1)(a) and (c).

The court was required to determine whether a non-publication order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or to protect the safety of any person. Additionally, it needed to assess whether such an order would be ineffective in achieving its intended purpose. These legal issues involved a careful balance between the principles of open justice and the need to safeguard the interests of individuals involved in the proceedings.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant provisions of the Open Courts Act. It concluded that while the principles of open justice are fundamental, there were circumstances in this case where the publication of certain details could indeed prejudice the administration of justice and endanger the safety of individuals. The court found that the non-publication orders were necessary and effective in preventing the potential harm identified. Consequently, the court granted the application for non-publication orders.

The final orders of the court included a non-publication order to prevent the dissemination of specific details of the proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of the Open Courts Act 2013. This decision underscored the court's commitment to balancing the public's right to know with the necessity to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the safety of individuals involved.

Orders