R v Munro - [2013] ACTSC 14

THE QUEEN v MARK ANTHONY MUNRO
[2013] ACTSC 14 (14 January 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – ex parte application to publish evidence of a witness examined by the Australian Crime Commission – application to publish evidence to the accused – where examinee before the Commission not the accused – Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) s 25A – factors to consider – interests of justice – safety and reputation of examinee – nature of offences – procedural uncertainty –examinee to be given an opportunity to be heard – application adjourned.

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), ss 25A, 30, div 2 pt 2
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 19
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990 (ACT), s 9
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 66, 128
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310

A v Boulton (2004) 136 FCR 420
AJ v The Queen [2011] VSCA 215
Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486
R v Melkie (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Gray J, 17 February 2011)
R v Seller [2012] NSWSC 934
R v Tripodi (2002) 136 A Crim R 514
Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281
TVM v Western Australia (2007) 180 A Crim R 183
Johns v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 178 CLR 408

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 178 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 14 January 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 178 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
v
MARK ANTHONY MUNRO

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  14 January 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Pursuant to s 25A(12) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), the Court certifies that any transcript or recordings of any examinations of [a named person] conducted by an examiner of the Australian Crime Commission are to be produced to this Court.
Subject to appropriate variation being made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission or his delegate to the non-publication direction dated [a given date], permitting the application in proceedings dated 10 January 2013 and the variation to the non-publication direction to be published to [a named person], a copy of that application be served on [the named person] with a copy of this order and a copy of the variation of the non-publication direction no later than 8.00 pm on

15 January 2013.
The application be adjourned to 10.00 am on 17 February 2013.

These proceedings involve a very serious incident, in which it is alleged that a serious robbery of some security guards outside the Mawson Club took place on

10 May 2004 when two men with guns stole about $150 000. In the course of the alleged robbery, one of the security guards was shot.

Mark Anthony Munro has been charged with the aggravated robbery of the employer of the guards and with intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on the guard who was shot. His trial is listed to commence on 25 February…

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 Munro

Details

AGLC: R v Munro [2013] ACTSC 14
Case: [2013] ACTSC 14
Decision Date: 14 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an ex parte application to publish evidence provided by a witness to the Australian Crime Commission. The applicant sought the publication of the evidence to the accused, who was not the examinee before the Commission. The application was heard in the relevant court, where the legal issues centred around the jurisdiction and procedure for publishing such evidence, considering the interests of justice, the safety and reputation of the examinee, the nature of the offences, and procedural uncertainties.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence should be published to the accused, taking into account the relevant statutory provisions and factors outlined in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) s 25A. The court acknowledged the importance of balancing the interests of justice with the need to protect the safety and reputation of the examinee, as well as the nature of the offences involved. Additionally, the court needed to address the procedural uncertainty surrounding the application and ensure that the examinee was given an opportunity to be heard.

The court found that, while the interests of justice and the need to protect the examinee's safety and reputation were important considerations, the procedural uncertainties in the application warranted further investigation. Consequently, the court certified the production of transcripts and recordings of the examinations to the court, subject to appropriate variations being made to the non-publication direction. The application was adjourned to allow for the examination of these factors and to provide the examinee with an opportunity to be heard.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 25A(12) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), the Court certifies that any transcript or recordings of any examinations of [a named person] conducted by an examiner of the Australian Crime Commission are to be produced to this Court.

Subject to appropriate variation being made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission or his delegate to the non-publication direction dated [a given date], permitting the application in proceedings dated 10 January 2013 and the variation to the non-publication direction to be published to [a named person], a copy of that application be served on [the named person] with a copy of this order and a copy of the variation of the non-publication direction no later than 8.00 pm on

15 January 2013.

The application be adjourned to 10.00 am on 17 February 2013.

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.