R v Lovett [No 3]

[2013] WASC 102 (S)

R -v- LOVETT [No 3] [2013] WASC 102 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 102 (S)
Case No:	INS:26/2012	Heard:	27 MARCH 2013
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	27/03/13
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Suppression order made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN BENJAMIN DAVID LOVETT
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Suppression of reasons for decision on admissibility of evidence in upcoming trial by jury Suppression order made to prevent prejudice to accused
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : R -v- LOVETT [No 3] [2013] WASC 102 (S) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 27 MARCH 2013 DELIVERED : 27 MARCH 2013 FILE NO/S : INS 26 of 2012 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND

BENJAMIN DAVID LOVETT
Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Suppression of reasons for decision on admissibility of evidence in upcoming trial by jury - Suppression order made to prevent prejudice to accused

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Suppression order made

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms G Nott
Respondent : Ms S M Manson-Grumley

Solicitors:

Applicant : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Respondent : Kate King Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

(Page 3)

[The suppression order which is described below was lifted on 23 April 2013.]

1 EDELMAN J: At the heart of this application were issues concerning the previous trial of Mr Lovett. At Mr Lovett's previous trial the jury did not reach a verdict. My reasons required exploration of matters from that previous trial. It is not possible to publish those reasons in a piecemeal fashion, that is, by excluding any reference to the previous trial. And to publish my reasons as a whole, including the reference to the previous trial, could cause real prejudice to Mr Lovett's forthcoming criminal trial. Neither the prosecution nor the defence intends to mention at the forthcoming trial the existence of Mr Lovett's previous trial. Both the prosecution and counsel for Mr Lovett sought an order that my reasons be suppressed. It is appropriate that my reasons, and these supplementary reasons, be suppressed until further order.