The application for an order under s 111 of the Evidence (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) that the name of the accused not be published be refused.
Category:
Principal Judgment
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Application for non-publication order – Principles of open justice – Circumstances under which non-publication order can be made – Material identifying Applicant already widely disseminated – Identity of person or persons disseminating material is not known – Trial not imminent – Likelihood of irreparable damage to the Applicant’s ability to receive a fair trial remote – Application dismissed
Michael Bohlander, ‘Open Justice or Open Season?: Should the Media Report the names of Suspects and Defendants?’ (2010) 74(4) Journal…
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 Meegan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Meegan [2014] ACTSC 263
Case
[2014] ACTSC 263
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Meegan involved the accused, Meegan, who applied for a non-publication order to prevent the publication of his name in relation to certain criminal charges. The matter was heard by the court which had to consider the principles of open justice and the circumstances under which such an order could be granted. The application for the non-publication order was made under section 111 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT).
The legal issues before the court were whether the material identifying the accused had already been widely disseminated, whether the identity of those disseminating the material was known, the proximity of the trial, and the likelihood of irreparable damage to the accused’s ability to receive a fair trial. The court considered that the material identifying the accused had already been widely disseminated and the identity of those responsible for the dissemination was not known. Additionally, the trial was not imminent, and the likelihood of irreparable damage to the accused's ability to receive a fair trial was remote.
In light of these considerations, the court dismissed the application for a non-publication order. The court emphasised the importance of the principle of open justice and the circumstances necessary to grant such an order. The court held that the criteria for a non-publication order were not met in this case.
The final orders of the court were that the application for an order under section 111 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) that the name of the accused not be published be refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for an order under s 111 of the Evidence (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) that the name of the accused not be published be refused.