R v Dawson - [2022] NSWSC 620

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 620
Hearing dates: 18 May 2022
Date of orders: 19 May 2022
Decision date: 19 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
The application to view or hear a record of evidence held in camera is refused.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial – significant public interest in the trial proper – proceedings held in camera – application by a media representative for access to view or hear a record of that evidence – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant such an application

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 291, 291C

Cases Cited:
R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 555

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christopher Michael Dawson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C M Everson SC and E Blizard (Crown)
P David (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Greg Walsh & Co Solicitors (Accused)
Thomson Geer Lawyers (Media intervenors)

File Number(s): 2018/372527
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Section 291C of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 provides as follows:

291C Media access to proceedings held in camera
(1) If a complainant gives evidence in proceedings in respect of a prescribed sexual offence from a place other than the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television facilities or other technology that enables communication between that place and the courtroom (whether under section 289V or 294B or Part 6), and the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings concerned, are held in camera under this Division, a media representative may, unless the court otherwise directs, enter or remain in the courtroom while the evidence is given from that other place. This subsection does not apply to proceedings in respect of an offence under section 78A or 78B of the Crimes Act 1900 .
(2) The fact that proceedings in respect of a prescribed sexual offence, or any part of such proceedings, are held in camera under this Division does not prevent the court from making such arrangements as the court considers reasonably practicable to allow media representatives to view or hear the evidence while it is given, or to view or hear a record of that evidence, as long as the media representatives are not present in the courtroom or other place where the evidence is given during the in camera proceedings.
Note : For example, the court may permit media representatives to view the proceedings from a place other than the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television facilities.

(3) In this section--
"media representative", in relation to any proceedings, means a person engaged in preparing a report of the proceedings for dissemination through a public news medium.

In the course of evidence given by a witness referred to as “JC”, I directed pursuant to s 291(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act that certain parts of her evidence be given in camera. That section is relevantly in these terms:

291 Proceedings must be held…

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 Dawson

Details

AGLC: R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 620
Case: [2022] NSWSC 620
Decision Date: 19 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dawson involved the trial of an accused person for the crime of murder. The trial was of significant public interest and, as such, was held in camera to protect the identity of the victim and other sensitive information. A media representative subsequently applied for access to a record of the evidence given during the trial. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was in the interests of justice to grant such an application, given the sensitive nature of the evidence and the need to protect the identity of the victim.

In determining whether the application should be granted, the court considered the public interest in open justice, the need to protect the identity of the victim, and the potential impact of releasing the evidence on any future proceedings. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was not in the interests of justice to grant the application. The sensitive nature of the evidence and the need to protect the identity of the victim outweighed the public interest in open justice. The court also noted that the evidence was likely to be used in any future proceedings and that releasing it at this stage could potentially prejudice those proceedings.

The court's decision was based on a careful balancing of the competing interests involved. The court recognised the importance of open justice but also acknowledged the need to protect the identity of the victim and the potential impact of releasing the evidence on any future proceedings. The court held that, in the circumstances, the interests of justice required that the application be refused. The court did not grant the media representative access to a record of the evidence given during the trial.

No final orders were made in this case as the application for access to a record of the evidence was not granted. The court's decision was based on a careful balancing of the competing interests involved and was made in the interests of justice.

Orders