SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Lehrmann (No 2) |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 92 |
Hearing Date: | 1 April 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 29 April 2022 |
Before: | McCallum CJ |
Decision: | 1) The accused’s application for a permanent or temporary stay of the criminal proceedings against him is dismissed. 2) The accused’s application directed to the media for a take-down order and injunction to restrain the publication of the matter specified in the evidence is dismissed. 3) Pursuant to s 111(2) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the publication of the following material is prohibited until further order: a) this judgment apart from paragraphs [1] to [6], [35] to [44], and these orders; b) the evidence and submissions relied upon in support of the applications. 4) Note that the term “publish” in order 3 is that defined in s 81J of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. 5) Note that copies of the entire judgment may be provided to journalists in physical attendance in the courtroom on their undertaking to only take a paper copy and not share it with anyone subject to the non-publication orders. 6) Extend order 3 to the publication of the evidence and submissions relied upon in support of the application made today. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Application by accused person for permanent or temporary stay of criminal proceedings – Inherent power of the Court to ensure that its processes are not abused – Significant pre-trial publicity – Whether of such a nature as to prevent a fair trial – Whether steps able to be taken by the trial judge in the conduct of the trial to relieve against its unfair consequences CRIME – Accused facing trial for sexual intercourse without consent – Significant pre-trial publicity and commentary including repeated discussion by the complainant of her allegation against the accused and public endorsement of her credibility and claimed status as a victim – Whether possible to empanel an impartial jury – Whether prejudice able to be addressed by directions by the trial judge PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for take-down order and injunction to restrain “any media outlet” from publishing specified matter – Whether necessary in the interests of ensuring a fair trial |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20; 241 CLR 237 |
Continue reading R v Lehrmann (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lehrmann (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 92
- Case
- [2022] ACTSC 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the inherent power to ensure that its processes are not abused did not extend to staying the proceedings due to pre-trial publicity. It held that the trial judge could take steps to mitigate the prejudicial effects of the publicity, such as providing directions to the jury, and that the accused had not demonstrated that an impartial jury could not be empanelled. The court further found that the accused had not demonstrated that the publication of the specified material would prevent a fair trial. It held that the court should not interfere with the natural justice rights of the complainant to speak about her allegations and the court could not grant a take-down order and injunction to restrain the publication of the specified matter.
The court dismissed the accused’s application for a permanent or temporary stay of the criminal proceedings against him. It also dismissed the accused’s application directed to the media for a take-down order and injunction to restrain the publication of the specified matter. The court prohibited the publication of this judgment apart from certain paragraphs, the evidence and submissions relied upon in support of the applications, until further order. Copies of the entire judgment could be provided to journalists in physical attendance in the courtroom on their undertaking to only take a paper copy and not share it with anyone subject to the non-publication orders. The court extended the non-publication order to the publication of the evidence and submissions relied upon in support of the application made that day.
The court ordered that the accused’s application for a permanent or temporary stay of the criminal proceedings against him be dismissed and that the application directed to the media for a take-down order and injunction to restrain the publication of the specified matter be dismissed. The court also ordered that the publication of certain material be prohibited until further order and that copies of the entire judgment could be provided to journalists in physical attendance in the courtroom on their undertaking to only take a paper copy and not share it with anyone subject to the non-publication orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1) The accused’s application for a permanent or temporary stay of the criminal proceedings against him is dismissed.
2) The accused’s application directed to the media for a take-down order and injunction to restrain the publication of the matter specified in the evidence is dismissed.
3) Pursuant to s 111(2) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the publication of the following material is prohibited until further order:
a) this judgment apart from paragraphs [1] to [6], [35] to [44], and these orders;
b) the evidence and submissions relied upon in support of the applications.
4) Note that the term “publish” in order 3 is that defined in s 81J of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
5) Note that copies of the entire judgment may be provided to journalists in physical attendance in the courtroom on their undertaking to only take a paper copy and not share it with anyone subject to the non-publication orders.
6) Extend order 3 to the publication of the evidence and submissions relied upon in support of the application made today.
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.