R v Papley (No 2)

[2017] NSWSC 1112

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Papley (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1112
Decision date:	18 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	R A Hulme J
Decision:	Consent to deceased child being identified by middle name only
Catchwords:	PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 – child allegedly killed – found to be deceased – no senior available next of kin – public interest requires giving child dignity and respect of a name – middle name used
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) ss 15A, 15E
Cases Cited:	R v BW and SW (No 2) [2009] NSWCCA 595; 196 A Crim R 329 R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina Karen Papley
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Carr (Crown) Mr T Gartelmann SC (Accused)   Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Rice More & Gibson
File Number(s):	2016/82780

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The accused is charged with the murder of her daughter. Section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (the Act) has the effect of prohibiting the publication or broadcast of anything that might identify the child. That means that her name cannot be published and nor can the name of the accused or any other family member.

2. Section 15E of the Act provides an exception where a child is deceased. The accused's daughter was born in 1999 and, aside from claims by the accused, was not seen by anyone after 2000-2001. In R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068 I found that the child was deceased. I am satisfied that there is no senior available next of kin who can give consent to publication or broadcast of the deceased child’s name.

3. I am satisfied that the public interest requires the child be recognised by at least having a name, rather than her "disappearance" being perpetuated by complete anonymisation. In my view, there is a public interest in according her that dignity and respect. In this regard I have had regard to my reasoning in R v BW and SW (No 2) [2009] NSWSC 595; 196 A Crim R 329.

4. I am given to understand that allowing the child to be publicly known by her middle name will not risk identification of any of her four siblings. Her mother (the accused), her sister, and grandmother are referred to by pseudonyms in R v Papley.

5. Pursuant to s 15E(5), I consent to the child who is the alleged victim in this matter being publicly known by her middle name, Astra.

**********

Decision last updated: 22 August 2017