Legal Research
Cases
R v Dirani (No 33)

R v Dirani (No 33)

Case [2019] NSWSC 288 29 March 2019

Conspiracy

Supply of Firearm

Jury

Publication of Trial Details

Access to Trial Exhibits

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dirani (No. 33) [2019] NSWSC 288
Hearing dates: 13 March 2019, 14 March 2019
Date of orders: 14 March 2019
Decision date: 29 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Publication of reasons for decision on 14 March 2019 refusing media applications for access to Exhibits E, F and AJ.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - trial - conspiracy to do acts in preparation for terrorist act - alternative count of knowingly taking part in supply of firearm - jury retired to consider verdict - application by media interests for access to trial exhibits to permit publication and broadcast after verdict - objections by Crown and Accused to release to media of certain photographic and electronic exhibits - application for access refused before delivery of verdict - publication of reasons for ruling - applications considered under Practice Note SC Gen 2 and general law - relevant discretionary factors considered - factors especially relevant to terrorism trials considered - media applications for access to certain photographic and electronic exhibits for copying purposes declined
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Practice Note SC Gen 2 “Supreme Court - Access to Court Files”
Cases Cited: Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
Burrell v R [2008] NSWCCA 276
David Syme & Co Limited v General Motors - Holden’s Limited (1984) 2 NSWLR 294
Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Limited v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52; [2012] NSWCCA 125
HIH Insurance Limited (In Liquidation) v General Re Insurance Australia Limited [2006] NSWSC 128
John Fairfax Pty Limited v District Court of New South Wales (2004) 61 NSWLR 344; [2004] NSWCA 324
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512; [2005] NSWCA 101
R (Cth) v Elomar and Ors (No. 3) [2008] NSWSC 1443
R v Abdallah (No. 3) [2015] NSWSC 121
R v Alou (No. 4) (2018) 330 FLR 402; [2018] NSWSC 221
R v Benbrika and Ors (No. 26) [2008] VSC 452
R v Brewer (No. 1) [2015] NSWSC 1471
R v Dirani (No. 22) [2018] NSWSC 1155
R v Dirani (No. 32) [2019] NSWSC 275
R v Gatt (No. 5) [2018] NSWSC 447
R v Hemming [2015] VSC 351
R v Jovanovic (2014) 285 FLR 108; [2014] ACTSC 98
R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1111
R v Sam (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 543
R v Sam (No. 16) (2009) 196 A Crim R 138; [2009] NSWSC 544
R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1026
R v Xu (No. 1) (2005) 152 A Crim R 17; [2005] NSWSC 73
Registrar of the Supreme Court (NT) v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2018] NTSC 22
Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403
Segal v Waverley Council (2005) 64 NSWLR 177; [2005] NSWCA 310
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mustafa Dirani (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr PR McGuire…

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 Dirani (No 33)

Details

AGLC: R v Dirani (No 33) [2019] NSWSC 288
Case: [2019] NSWSC 288
Decision Date: 29 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dirani (No 33), the accused faced charges related to conspiracy to engage in acts in preparation for a terrorist act and an alternative count of knowingly participating in the supply of a firearm. The case was heard in a court that had jurisdiction over criminal matters. The dispute centred around the accused's involvement in activities that were alleged to be preparatory to a terrorist act, and the alternative count involved the accused's knowledge and participation in the supply of a firearm.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the media should be granted access to certain trial exhibits for the purposes of publication and broadcast after the verdict, and whether specific photographic and electronic exhibits should be withheld from public disclosure due to objections from both the Crown and the accused. The court was tasked with balancing the public's right to access information against the potential prejudice that might arise from the disclosure of sensitive materials, especially in the context of a terrorism trial.

The court carefully considered the relevant discretionary factors and the specific considerations applicable to terrorism trials. It ultimately decided to decline the media's applications for access to certain photographic and electronic exhibits for copying purposes. The court's decision was based on the need to protect the integrity of the trial and to prevent any potential prejudice that might result from the premature disclosure of sensitive information. The court's ruling was made in accordance with the relevant practice notes and general law principles.

No final orders were made in this part of the proceedings as the case was still ongoing, and the court's decision pertained only to the access to trial exhibits. The court's ruling, however, provided clear guidance on the considerations that would need to be taken into account when making any final orders regarding the disclosure of sensitive information in the context of a terrorism trial.

Orders