R v Hemming (Ruling 1) - [2015] VSC 351

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0085

Application for access under s 464JB of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
R v THOMAS JAMES HEMMING

--

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 December 2014, 12 January 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT :	12 August 2015,
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hemming (Ruling 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 351

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Application by Media for copy of the audio video record of interview - Application refused-

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Offender For the Crown	M C Nikakis Mr R Lewis	Haines & Polites Office of Public Prosecutions
For the first Applicant Fairfax Media Limited, Nationwide News Ltd and Newslife Media Pty Ltd	Mr D Stuk Mr J P Cashen	Kelly Hazell Quill Lawyers
For the second Applicant Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd, Seven Network (Operations) Ltd,	Mr T Hutton	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

HER HONOUR:

The Application

By summons dated 10 December 2014, Kelly Hazell Quill Lawyers, pursuant to s 464JB(2) of the Crimes Act 1958, made application that the Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (including its employees, servants, agents, related entities and licensees) be permitted to access a copy of the audio-visual recording of Thomas Hemming’s interview with Victoria Police together with permission to copy, edit, play or publish, in whole or in part, the audio-visual recording of Thomas Hemming. The audio-visual recording relates to the murders of Mr and Mrs Adamson by the prisoner Thomas Hemming, which I shall detail shortly.

On 17 December 2014, an email was received from Corrs Chambers Westgarth, on behalf of Channel 7, stating that they also would be seeking access to that video-recording. Accordingly, both matters were directed to be listed and heard together.

Background

The background facts relevant to this application are that Thomas James Hemming, a 21 year old man, who lived with his parents in Murrumbeena, in the early hours of the morning of 19 February 2014, murdered Robert Malcolm Adamson and his wife Cheryl Celeste Adamson in their home in Murrumbeena, a mere few houses from where he together with his family, resided. The murders were committed in a particularly grave manner in that they were random, inexplicable and senseless, and accurately described in the sentencing remarks as ‘thrill kills’. The plea for the offending was heard on 13 October 2014, and on 24 October 2014, I sentenced Mr Hemming to a total of 32 years with a minimum of 27 years’ imprisonment, and published lengthy reasons.

The Adamsons’ were a much cared about couple, Mr Adamson working as an accountant and Mrs Adamson as a teacher/librarian at a private school in Melbourne and they were also involved in the community in which they lived. The parents and sister of Mr Hemming were teachers and health care professions and also involved in their local and extended community.

The parties and their attitudes

Mr Hemming opposed the application to release the audio-video recording,…

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 Hemming (Ruling 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Hemming (Ruling 1) [2015] VSC 351
Case: [2015] VSC 351
Decision Date: 12 August 2015,

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hemming involved an application by media entities seeking a copy of the audio-visual record of an interview conducted with the accused, Hemming, by law enforcement officers. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was whether the media had a legitimate right to access the recorded interview under the circumstances presented. The court had to consider the balance between the public's right to be informed and the privacy rights of the accused during police interrogations.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of relevant statutes and common law principles concerning privacy and freedom of information. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the media's application was in the public interest and whether the privacy rights of Hemming outweighed the public's right to know. Additionally, the court examined whether there were any legal precedents that could guide its decision in this particular context.

In delivering its ruling, the court noted the importance of protecting the integrity of the investigative process and the necessity to safeguard the rights of individuals during police interrogations. It found that the media's request did not sufficiently demonstrate a compelling public interest that could override Hemming's privacy rights. The court emphasised that the audio-visual records of such interviews are sensitive and should not be disclosed without a strong justification. Consequently, the application by the media was refused, and the privacy of the accused was upheld.

Orders