R v Leach; R v Leach; Ex parte - [2022] QCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Leach; R v Leach; Ex parte Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] QCA 23

PARTIES:
In CA No 91 of 2020:

R
v

LEACH, Philip Denis
(applicant)

In CA No 198 of 2020:

R
v

LEACH, Philip Denis
(respondent)

EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(appellant)

FILENO/S:
CA No 91 of 2020

CA No 198 of 2020
DC No 1479 of 2013

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal) Reference under s 668A Criminal Code

ORIGINATINGCOURT:
District Court at Brisbane – [2020] QDC 42 (Smith DCJA)

DELIVEREDON: 1 March 2022

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: Heard on the papers

JUDGES: Fraser, Morrison and Bond JJA

ORDERS:
In CA No 91 of 2020 and CA No 198 of 2020

1.   Until further order of the Court, publication of the Court’s reasons for judgment delivered on 9 February 2022 in an unredacted form be limited to the parties and to their legal representatives in the proceedings before this Court.

2.   Otherwise, the Court’s reasons for judgment delivered on 9 February 2022 containing the redactions identified in annexure “A” to these reasons may be published without limitation.

CATCHWORDS:
PUBLICATION   OF   JUDGMENT   –   REDACTIONS   –

ANONYMISATION – where reasons for judgment were

published only to the parties and legal representatives before the Court – where the parties were directed to file written submissions addressing the extent to which any part of the judgment should be redacted – whether anonymisation is necessary

COUNSEL:
P J Dunning QC, with B Blond, S Palaniappan and J J Underwood, for the applicant in CA No 91 of 2020 and for the respondent in CA No 198 of 2020

L K Crowley QC, with B J Power, for the respondent in CA No 91 of 2020 and for the appellant in CA No 198 of 2020

SOLICITORS:
Pharmacis Canning for the applicant in CA No 91 of 2020 and for the respondent in CA No 198 of 2020

Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent in CA No 91 of 2020 and for the appellant in CA No 198 of 2020

THE COURT: On 9 February 2022 the Court published to the parties, and to their legal representatives in the proceedings before the Court, its reasons for judgment. The Court made an interim order limiting any wider publication until it could consider written submissions which it sought from the parties addressing the extent to which wider publication should be further limited. It is convenient to refer to that judgment as the “first judgment”.

Submissions have now been filed. Mr Leach submitted that the judgment should be “anonymised”. The CDPP submitted that would be unnecessary and inconsistent with the conduct of the litigation to date. Otherwise, both sides agreed that a redacted version of the first judgment could be published without limitation and they agreed on the extent of redaction. Annexure “A” to these reasons is a version of the first judgment containing all the redactions on which…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Leach; R v Leach; Ex parte and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QCA 23
Decision Date: 1 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved two appeals against conviction and sentence by the respondents, Leach and another. The appeals were heard together and the applicants sought various reliefs including the quashing of convictions and orders for a new trial. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether certain information contained in the reasons for judgment could be redacted and published or whether the entire reasons for judgment had to be published without any redactions. The court had to consider the appropriate balance between the public's right to access information and the need to protect the privacy and reputation of individuals involved in legal proceedings.

The court considered the applicable principles governing the publication of judgments and the need to protect the privacy and reputation of individuals. The court noted that while the public has a right to access information, this must be balanced against the need to protect the privacy and reputation of individuals involved in legal proceedings. The court held that the reasons for judgment could be redacted to the extent necessary to protect the privacy and reputation of the individuals involved, and that such redacted reasons could be published without limitation. The court held that the appropriate balance was achieved by redacting certain information that was not necessary for the public to understand the reasons for the court's decision. The court found that the redactions identified in annexure "A" to the reasons for judgment achieved this balance.

The court made orders limiting the publication of the reasons for judgment in an unredacted form to the parties and their legal representatives. The court held that the redacted reasons for judgment could be published without limitation. The orders were made in CA No 91 of 2020 and CA No 198 of 2020.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 91 of 2020 and CA No 198 of 2020

1. Until further order of the Court, publication of the Court’s reasons for judgment delivered on 9 February 2022 in an unredacted form be limited to the parties and to their legal representatives in the proceedings before this Court.

2. Otherwise, the Court’s reasons for judgment delivered on 9 February 2022 containing the redactions identified in annexure “A” to these reasons may be published without limitation.

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.

CITATION:	R v Leach; R v Leach; Ex parte Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] QCA 23
PARTIES:	In CA No 91 of 2020: R v LEACH, Philip Denis (applicant) In CA No 198 of 2020: R v LEACH, Philip Denis (respondent) EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (appellant)
FILENO/S:	CA No 91 of 2020 CA No 198 of 2020 DC No 1479 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal) Reference under s 668A Criminal Code
ORIGINATINGCOURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2020] QDC 42 (Smith DCJA)
DELIVEREDON:	1 March 2022
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Fraser, Morrison and Bond JJA
ORDERS:	In CA No 91 of 2020 and CA No 198 of 2020 1. Until further order of the Court, publication of the Court’s reasons for judgment delivered on 9 February 2022 in an unredacted form be limited to the parties and to their legal representatives in the proceedings before this Court. 2. Otherwise, the Court’s reasons for judgment delivered on 9 February 2022 containing the redactions identified in annexure “A” to these reasons may be published without limitation.
CATCHWORDS:	PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENT – REDACTIONS – ANONYMISATION – where reasons for judgment were