Legal Research
Cases
R v Pearce

R v Pearce

Case [2003] WASC 105 21 May 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

R -v- PEARCE & ORS [2003] WASC 105

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 105
Case No:	INS:80/2003	Heard:	21 MAY 2003
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	21/05/03
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for suppression order refused
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN SEAN PEARCE STEPHEN LYNNE WHARTON WALTER JOHN TIELEMAN
Catchwords:	Procedure Courts and Judges Nonpublication order Suppression order made in Court of Petty Sessions Whether can be "extended" to cover proceedings in Supreme Court Power to make suppression order Courts and Judges Suppression order Conspiracy to defraud by means of scheme for tax evasion Whether names of accused should be suppressed Whether order can be made before accused arraigned Principles
Legislation:	Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 65
Case References:	Cooke v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 51 ATR 223 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lau (1984) 6 FCR 202 Fletcher v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 173 CLR 1 J v L and A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 Qd R 10 Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23 John Fairfax and Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 Martin v M & Ors (1991) 54 A Crim R 173 Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493 Petroulias v Wills [2003] NSWSC 106 Raybos Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Jones (1985) 2 NSWLR 47 Re Bromfield SM; Ex parte West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1991) 6 WAR 153 TK & Ors v Australian Red Cross Society (1989) 1 WAR 335 Vincent v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 51 ATR 18 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Brand (1995) 31 ATR 326 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Emmakell Pty Ltd (1990) 22 FCR 157 Federal Commissioner of Taxtion v Firth (2002) 192 ALR 542 Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v Magistrates' Court (Vic) [1999] 2 VR 672 HowlandRose v Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 118 FCR 61 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v District Court of New South Wales & Ors (1996) 90 A Crim R 435 Puzey v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 194 ALR 615 VIP Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, unreported; FCt SCt of SA; 2 May 1994

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : R -v- PEARCE & ORS [2003] WASC 105 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 21 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 21 MAY 2003 FILE NO/S : INS 80 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Crown

AND

SEAN PEARCE

STEPHEN LYNNE WHARTON

WALTER JOHN TIELEMAN

Accused

Catchwords:

Procedure - Courts and Judges - Nonpublication order - Suppression order made in Court of Petty Sessions - Whether can be "extended" to cover proceedings in Supreme Court - Power to make suppression order

Courts and Judges - Suppression order - Conspiracy to defraud by means of scheme for tax evasion - Whether names of accused should be suppressed - Whether order can be made before…

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 Pearce

Details

AGLC: R v Pearce [2003] WASC 105
Case: [2003] WASC 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pearce involved an application for a suppression order made by the accused, Sean Pearce, Stephen Lynne Wharton, and Walter John Tieleman, against the Crown. The application was to suppress the publication of the proceedings in open court and to extend the suppression order made in the Court of Petty Sessions. The primary legal issue was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to make a suppression order prior to the arraignment of the accused and whether the order could be extended to cover the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The court held that the suppression order made by the Magistrate could only operate in relation to the proceedings before the Court of Petty Sessions and could not operate in respect of proceedings upon indictment in the Supreme Court. The court also held that it had jurisdiction to make a suppression order in relation to these accused prior to arraignment and that the order would be an exercise of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and would not be an extension of any pre-existing order made by a Magistrate. The court considered the competing interests of the accused and the public interest in the open administration of justice and concluded that the interests of justice were served by open and public proceedings. The applications for suppression orders were refused.

Orders