R v JM (No 2)

In the case of R v JM (No 2), the respondent, who was a child at the time of the alleged offending, was charged with murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice McInerney. The trial was conducted without a jury, in accordance with the respondent's election. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings should have been conducted in camera, given the respondent's status as a child at the time of the alleged offending, and the potential for the disclosure of the respondent's identity to have a significant impact on the respondent's future.

The court considered the limited authority available on the issue, including the decision of the High Court in A-G (NSW) v Dearney [2014] HCA 18. The court held that the decision of the High Court was binding and that the trial should have been conducted in camera. The court further held that the question of whether the court should be closed was a matter for the court's discretion, to be exercised in accordance with the principles set out in Dearney. In exercising its discretion, the court considered the potential for the disclosure of the respondent's identity to have a significant impact on the respondent's future, as well as the public interest in the administration of justice.

Ultimately, the court determined that the trial should have been conducted in camera and ordered that the trial be reheard before a judge alone, with the court to be closed to the public. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the identity of children who are the subject of criminal proceedings, and the need to balance this with the public interest in the administration of justice. The court also noted that the decision was not a reflection on the respondent or the circumstances of the case, but rather a recognition of the importance of the principles set out in Dearney.

The final orders of the court were that the trial be reheard before a judge alone, with the court to be closed to the public, and that the respondent's identity be protected in all proceedings related to the charges. The court also ordered that any identifying information be removed from any documents or records related to the case.