R v Francis

Michelle Jane Francis was convicted of attempted murder against her former husband, John Graham Francis, and faced a review of a suppression order made prior to her trial. The suppression order, made on 5 December 2006, prohibited the identification of the child of the parties, who was eleven years old at the time. The suppression order was reviewed under the Evidence (Suppression Orders) Amendment Act 2006 (SA), which came into operation on 1 April 2007. The central legal issues were whether the Amendment Act applies retrospectively to mandate a review of the 5 December 2006 suppression order, whether the reasons underlying the making of the suppression order still exist to justify its continuation, whether revocation of the order would cause the child “undue hardship,” and whether “special circumstances” exist to justify the continuation of the order against the public interest requirement for the publication of information related to court proceedings.

The court determined that the Evidence (Suppression Orders) Amendment Act operates retrospectively in this context, as suppression orders are procedural and do not affect substantive rights. The court also found that the circumstances justifying the suppression order initially, such as media interest and the child’s level of involvement in the trial, were no longer relevant. There was no evidence that the potential harm from bullying in the schoolyard could be classed as unwarranted or excessive, as opposed to an inevitable level of suffering or embarrassment that would always befall the family of an offender. The possibility of such harm did not override the public interest requirements in the administration of justice. Consequently, the suppression order was revoked.

The court revoked the suppression order of 5 December 2006, allowing the identification of the child of Michelle Jane Francis and John Graham Francis to be published. The decision was based on the absence of undue hardship to the child if the order were lifted, and the lack of special circumstances justifying the continuation of the order against the public interest. The court’s decision aligns with the public interest in the administration of justice, as mandated by section 69A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA).