R v Harrap - [2020] SADC 148

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HARRAP AND ORS
[2020] SADC 148
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Slattery
26 October 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURTS AND JUDGES - SUPPRESSION ORDERS
On 6 July 2020, an interim suppression order was made by a Judge of this Court. The addresses of the defendants were suppressed.
On 18 September 2020, an application was made to review and extend that suppression order. A separate application was made for a suppression order in respect of two psychological reports.
Held:
1. Discharge the interim suppression order made by Judge McEwen on 6 July 2020;
2. Order for the suppression of the addresses of the defendants Mr Robert Bruce Harrap; Ms Melanie Jane Freeman; Ms Catherine Jayne Moyse and Ms Abigail Rebecca Foulkes pursuant to s 69A(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1929;
3. Order that the name of the infant son of the defendant Mr Robert Harrap and Ms Catherine Moyse is anonymised wheresoever it appears in the reports of the psychologists Mr Richard Balfour dated 16 September 2020 and Dr Pam Carroll dated 16 September 2020;
4. Order that the name of the school at which the son attends is anonymised wheresoever it appears in the reports of the psychologists Mr Richard Balfour dated 16 September 2020 and Dr Pam Carroll dated 16 September 2020;
5. Order for the suppression of the report of Mr Richard Balfour dated 16 September 2020, pursuant to s 69A(1)(b)(iii) of the Evidence Act 1929 as follows:
a. The preamble paragraph entitled ‘Sensitive Information Warning …’;
b. On page 10, in the third paragraph under the heading ‘Interpersonal History’, from the sentence commencing “After we had…” to “play sport”;
c. On page 10 (through to page 11) in the fifth paragraph under the heading ‘Interpersonal history’ from ‘it’s kind of …’ through to the word ‘time’ at the commencement of the sixth line on page 11 of that report;
d. On page 17 of the report, paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3, the last sentence of paragraph 5 and paragraph 6.
6. Order for the suppression of paragraph 4.4 of the report of Dr Pam Carrol, clinical psychologist, dated 16 September 2020 under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

R v HARRAP AND ORS
[2020] SADC 148

On 27 July 2020, Mr Robert Harrap pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Two counts of Deceive Another To Benefit Self – Basic Offence (s 139(a) Criminal Law Consolidation Date 1935)
One count of Public Officer Exercise Power to Secure Benefit – Basic (s 251(1)(a) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935).
On 27 July 2020, Ms Melanie Jane Freeman pleaded guilty to the following offence:
One count of Deceive Another To Benefit Self – Basic Offence (s 139(a) Criminal Law Consolidation Date 1935)
On 3 August 2020, Ms Abigail Rebecca Foulkes pleaded guilty to the following offence:
One count of Deceive Another To Benefit Self – Basic Offence (s 139(a) Criminal Law Consolidation Date…

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 Harrap

Details

AGLC: R v Harrap [2020] SADC 148
Case: [2020] SADC 148
Decision Date: 26 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harrap, the defendants contested the interim suppression order made by Judge McEwen on 6 July 2020, which was imposed in the context of a criminal proceeding. The suppression order was aimed at protecting the privacy and safety of certain individuals, including the defendants and a minor child, from public disclosure. The court was asked to review and potentially discharge or modify the interim order.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Evidence Act 1929, specifically sections 69A and 69B. The defendants argued that the interim suppression order was overly broad and not sufficiently justified by the need to protect privacy or the safety of individuals, as required by the statutory provisions. They contended that the order should be discharged or narrowed to ensure that the suppression of information did not unduly infringe upon their rights and the public's right to know.

The court found that while the initial suppression order was made with the intent to protect the privacy of certain individuals, it was indeed overly broad. The court held that the interim order should be discharged and replaced with a more narrowly tailored order. The new order specified the suppression of particular pieces of information, including the addresses of the defendants, the name of a minor child, the name of the school he attends, and certain sections of psychological reports. The court concluded that these specific suppressions were necessary to balance the defendants' privacy interests against the public's right to access information in criminal proceedings.

The final orders of the court discharged the interim suppression order and put in place a more precise suppression order, specifying the exact information to be suppressed. This included the suppression of the defendants' addresses, the anonymisation of the name of the minor child and the school he attends, and the suppression of specific sections of two psychologists' reports. The decision underscored the need for suppression orders to be carefully tailored to meet the statutory requirements and to avoid unnecessary infringements on individual rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held:

1. Discharge the interim suppression order made by Judge McEwen on 6 July 2020;

2. Order for the suppression of the addresses of the defendants Mr Robert Bruce Harrap; Ms Melanie Jane Foulkes; Ms Catherine Jayne Moyse and Ms Abigail Rebecca Freeman pursuant to s 69A(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1929;

3. Order that the name of the infant son of the defendant Mr Robert Harrap and Ms Catherine Moyse is anonymised wheresoever it appears in the reports of the psychologists Mr Richard Balfour dated 16 September 2020 and Dr Pam Carroll dated 16 September 2020;

4. Order that the name of the school at which the son attends is anonymised wheresoever it appears in the reports of the psychologists Mr Richard Balfour dated 16 September 2020 and Dr Pam Carroll dated 16 September 2020;

5. Order for the suppression of the report of Mr Richard Balfour dated 16 September 2020, pursuant to s 69A(1)(b)(iii) of the Evidence Act 1929 as follows:

a. The preamble paragraph entitled ‘Sensitive Information Warning …’;

b. On page 10, in the third paragraph under the heading ‘Interpersonal History’, from the sentence commencing “After we had…” to “play sport”;

c. On page 10 (through to page 11) in the fifth paragraph under the heading ‘Interpersonal history’ from ‘it’s kind of …’ through to the word ‘time’ at the commencement of the sixth line on page 11 of that report;

d. On page 17 of the report, paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3, the last sentence of paragraph 5 and paragraph 6.

6. Order for the suppression of paragraph 4.4 of the report of Dr Pam Carrol, clinical psychologist, dated 16 September 2020 under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.