R v G - [2007] VSC 503

“EDITED VERSION”	Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1622 of 2007

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 October 2007, 14 November 2007
DATE OF RULING:	14 November 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v G
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 503 [Edited Version]

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Arraignment and plea hearing – Order for closed court – Non-publication order – Necessity – Unusual danger – Media heard but not given access to material relied upon at this stage.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan SC and Mr A. Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Dann	McLennan (Chris) & Co

HIS HONOUR:

On Thursday 11 October 2007, at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions a matter was listed before me as [title deleted]. An indication was given to court staff that a suppression order would be applied for before the matter proceeded.

Mr Horgan SC and Mr Tinney of counsel appeared on behalf of the prosecution. Before the matter was called or any step was taken, Mr Horgan asked for an order closing the court so that he could make an application. He indicated that he could not make the application in open court. In the circumstances I acceded to his request and I closed the court. I indicated that counsel and solicitors for parties in the matter might remain as well as police officers, prison officers, protective service officers and court staff.

In closed court, Mr Horgan filed the document entitled “Confidential Affidavit of Ronald Iddles”, which had a court heading referring to Margaret Schultz, as the informant, and [name deleted], as the accused. Mr Dann of counsel announced an appearance on behalf of [name deleted].

In the confidential affidavit Mr Iddles swore that he is a Detective Senior Sergeant with the Victoria Police currently managing a homicide investigation known as Operation Briars. Operation Briars had been formed in April 2007 as a joint Victoria Police/Office of Police Integrity taskforce, for the purpose of investigating the murder of Shane Chartres-Abbott.

The affidavit stated that Shane Chartres-Abbott had been murdered on 4 June 2003 and that in November 2006 [name deleted] had been interviewed and had subsequently provided signed statements implicating himself and a number of other persons in that murder. Amongst the persons so implicated is a currently serving police officer and an ex-member of Victoria Police.

Mr Iddles affidavit contained the following passage:

[Extracts deleted]

Senior counsel for the prosecution said it was intended that [name deleted] be arraigned on the charge of murdering Shane Chartres-Abbott and submitted that it was necessary that that be done in closed court in order not to compromise the investigation, and so as to protect the safety of a number of person [references to persons and other matters deleted].

When the matter was initially called, a…

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 G

Details

AGLC: R v G [2007] VSC 503
Case: [2007] VSC 503
Decision Date: 14 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v G, the defendant stood accused of murder and faced arraignment and a plea hearing. The Crown sought a closed court order and a non-publication order due to concerns about the safety of witnesses and the defendant. The court was tasked with determining whether these orders were necessary given the potential dangers posed by media coverage. The case was heard in the relevant court where the defendant's right to a fair trial and the public's right to access judicial proceedings were both considered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the extraordinary measures requested by the Crown were justified. This involved balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial against the public's right to access information about the proceedings. The court examined the potential risks to the safety of witnesses and the defendant if the case was reported on by the media. It also considered whether the media had been adequately informed of the reasons for the orders to allow for meaningful scrutiny of the court's decision.

The court concluded that the unusual danger presented by the case warranted the imposition of both a closed court and a non-publication order. It found that the potential risks to the safety of the witnesses and the defendant outweighed the public's interest in open justice. The court acknowledged that the media had been given some information about the case, but it held that they had not been provided with sufficient detail to fully understand the reasons for the orders. This partial disclosure was deemed insufficient to allow for meaningful scrutiny of the court's decision. The court therefore granted the Crown's application for both a closed court and a non-publication order.

The court ordered that the arraignment and plea hearing be held in a closed court, with no media present. Additionally, it ordered that no information about the case be published until the conclusion of the trial. This decision ensured that the safety of the witnesses and the defendant was prioritised while still allowing for the public's right to access information to be considered.

Orders