R v Kannan (Ruling No 2) - [2019] VSC 531

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0063

S CR 2018 0064

THE QUEEN

KUMUTHINI KANNAN

and

KANDASAMY KANNAN

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 July 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 July 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kannan & Anor (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 531

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Ruling – Suppression order – Application for names of accused to be suppressed – Necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means – Necessary to protect safety of any person – Application granted – Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) ss 14, 17 – 19.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms T. McDonald SC Ms K. Breckweg Ms C. Fitzgerald	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For Kumuthini Kannan	Dr G. Boas Mr P. Smallwood	Stary Norton Halphen
For Kandasamy Kannan	Mr P. Chadwick QC Ms M. Brown	Peter Lunt Lawyers
For The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd and The Age Company Pty Ltd	Mr C. Jankie	Macpherson Kelley

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 8 July 2019, Kumuthini Kannan (‘the applicant’) filed a notice of application for a proceeding suppression order prohibiting the publication of the names of, or information that would identify, Kumuthini Kannan and/or Kandasamy Kannan, being both accused. The notice stated reliance would be placed on a psychological report authored by Jeffrey Cummins on 4 July 2019. The applicant did not seek an interim suppression order.

On the same day, the hearing of the application was listed for 12 July 2019. The Court informed the media of this date and provided the notice of application as filed. Prior to the hearing, I was informed the application was opposed by the prosecution and also The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd and The Age Company Pty Ltd (‘the media’), who appeared through counsel.

During the hearing on 12 July 2019, the application was limited to an order that prohibited the publication of the names of both accused. The applicant abandoned the reference to ‘information that would identify Kumuthini Kannan and/or Kandasamy Kannan’. Furthermore, the applicant clarified that a non-publication order was sought only until verdict was returned in respect of the two charges against herself.

Background

The accused are each charged with the following offences, both contrary to s 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Code’):

(a) Charge 1: Between 5 July 2007 and 30 July 2015, Kumuthini Kannan and Kandasamy Kannan intentionally possessed a slave; and

(b) Charge 2: Between 5 July 2007 and 30 July 2015, Kumuthini Kannan and Kandasamy Kannan intentionally exercised over a slave any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership, namely use.

I have summarised the prosecution case regarding these charges in a previous ruling in this matter.[1]
[1]See R v Kannan & Anor (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 461R.

The applicable legislation

This…

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 Kannan (Ruling No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Kannan (Ruling No 2) [2019] VSC 531
Case: [2019] VSC 531
Decision Date: 17 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a ruling application in R v Kannan, involving the suppression of the names of the accused individuals to prevent any real and substantial risk to the administration of justice. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants sought to ensure that the names of the accused were not disclosed to the public, as they believed that such disclosure could jeopardise the fairness of the trial and the safety of individuals involved in the case.

The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the suppression of the accused's names was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the administration of justice, and whether it was necessary to protect the safety of any person. The court had to consider the provisions of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), specifically sections 14, 17–19, in making its decision.

In granting the application, the court found that the suppression of the accused's names was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the administration of justice, which could not be adequately prevented by other reasonably available means. The court also determined that the suppression was necessary to protect the safety of individuals involved in the case. The court's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the potential consequences of the disclosure of the accused's names, taking into account the principles outlined in the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic).

The court's final orders included the suppression of the accused's names, ensuring that the trial could proceed in a fair and impartial manner, and that the safety of individuals involved in the case was protected.

Orders