R v Qaumi (No 51) - [2016] NSWSC 1054

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 51) [2016] NSWSC 1054
Hearing dates: 1 August 2016
Date of orders: 01 August 2016
Decision date: 01 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Non-publication orders made – see para [14].

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – violent incident in court – public interest in security of court – desirability of full reporting – administration of justice
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Nationwide News Limited v Qaumi [2016] NSWCCA 97
R v Qaumi and Ors (No 15) [2016] NSWSC 318
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Farhad Qaumi
Mumtaz Qaumi
Jamil Qaumi
Mohammed Zarshoy
Mohammed Kalal
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay & P Hogan (Crown)
J Stratton SC & M Curry (F Qaumi)
P Young SC (M Quami)
N Carroll(J Quami)
R Driels (Zarshoy)
G Clarke (Kalal)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the NSW DPP(Crown)
Archbold Legal (F Qaumi)
George Sten& Co (M Quami)
Bannisters Lawyers (J Quami)
Zahr Lawyers (Zarshoy)
Hallak Law (Kalal)

File Number(s): Farhad Quami - 2014/6809; 2014/315201; 2014/315252Mumtaz Quami – 2014/6813; 2014/315251; 2014/315260Jamil Quami - 2013/336086; 2014/18164; 2014315253Mohammad Zarshoy – 2014/316236Mohammad Kalal - 2013/344739; 2014/66939
Publication restriction: No publication until the conclusion of the trial.

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Shortly after quarter past two this afternoon when the jury in the trial was allowed to disperse so that certain legal arguments could occur, there was an incident between certain accused within the dock area. That incident, as I have earlier described, was of a very violent nature and seemed to be the culmination of something that had been brewing in the course of the day when words had been exchanged between some of the accused. For that reason, the trial, at least in terms of the legal argument, is currently progressing in the absence of the accused.
Mr Young, on behalf of Mumtaz Qaumi, with the concurrence of the learned Crown Prosecutor, has asked that orders be made essentially suppressing, as it was put, reporting of that incident.
I have earlier in the trial made a variety of non-publication orders: see, for example, R v Qaumi and Ors (No 15) [2016] NSWSC 318. That judgment was subject to an appeal by Nationwide News and I think the Australian Broadcasting Corporation but the orders were upheld, see: Nationwide News Limited v Qaumi [2016] NSWCCA 97. Both of those judgments have non-publication orders until the conclusion of the trials, and I emphasise the word in the plural.
The incident that occurred today occurred in my presence and the accused were restrained and taken from the courtroom. The goings on inside a courtroom and the security of court staff, the security of the lawyers, security of Corrective Services officers is a matter of public interest and is a matter which ought properly to be the subject of fair and full reportage or reporting and the media certainly has an interest in being heard if any suppression…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Qaumi (No 51) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 1054
Decision Date: 01 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Qaumi (No 51) was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Qaumi, was charged with assault and related offences following a violent incident that occurred in a courtroom. The incident raised questions about the security of the court and the public interest in ensuring the administration of justice can proceed without interference. The court was tasked with determining whether the suppression of evidence in the form of video recordings of the incident was justified, considering the security of the court and the administration of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the suppression of evidence was necessary to protect the security of the court and the administration of justice. The court needed to balance the public interest in the full reporting of court proceedings with the need to maintain the security of the court. The court also considered whether the suppression of the evidence was proportionate to the potential risks to the administration of justice.

The court held that the suppression of evidence was justified in this case. The court found that the potential risks to the security of the court and the administration of justice outweighed the public interest in the full reporting of the proceedings. The court recognised that the incident in question was a serious breach of the security of the court and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The court also found that the suppression of evidence was a proportionate response to the risks identified. The court concluded that the suppression of evidence was necessary to protect the security of the court and the administration of justice.

The court ordered that the evidence be suppressed and that no further reporting of the incident be allowed. The court also directed that the suppression order be reviewed in six months to ensure that it remained necessary and proportionate. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the public interest in the full reporting of court proceedings with the need to maintain the security of the court and the administration of justice.

Orders