R v Rintoull - [2010] VSC 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1403 of 2008

DPP

CLINTON DAVID RINTOULL
DYLAN GUISEPPE SABATINO

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 February 2010
DATE OF RULING:	17 February 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rintoull & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 30

---

Catchwords: Application to vacate suppression order – Release of visual images of prisoners – Risk of prisoners in protective custody.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr Gavin Silbert QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused (Rintoull)	Ms Helen Spowart	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Accused (Sabatino)	Mr Scott Johns	Patrick W. Dwyer Barrister & Solicitor

HER HONOUR:

On 18 December 2009, Clinton Rintoull was sentenced in respect of one count of murder and one count of intentionally damaging property, and Dylan Sabatino was sentenced in respect of one count of manslaughter and one count of intentionally damaging property. Immediately prior to the sentences being imposed, counsel for each of the defendants sought a suppression order in relation to the visual images of their respective clients and of certain photographs relating to their crimes.

Mr Georgiou, who appeared on behalf of Mr Rintoull, submitted that his client was then in protective custody and that there were concerns for his physical safety and retribution from other prisoners, as the Crown had alleged that the killing was racially motivated. Mr Johns, on behalf of Mr Sabatino, made a similar submission, but also relied upon the age of his client (21) and the risk to the safety of his client’s own family. The Director of Public Prosecutions, represented by Mr Schwartz, opposed both applications. No representative from the media was present at the time the application was made, although similar applications had been made at the plea hearing.

Before sentencing the defendants, I articulated an order prohibiting the publication of any sketched image of the defendants and prohibiting the publication of any photographs relating to the crime. Later that day, the order was formally authenticated in the following terms:

“Subject to further order, the publication of any photographs or visual representation of either of the accused is prohibited.”

The order was made pursuant to ss 18 and 19(c) of the Supreme Court Act.

Mr Quill, who, with leave, appears on behalf of the Herald and Weekly Times, having initially sought only a variation of that order so as to permit publication of previously published sketched images of the defendants, after further consideration now seeks the vacation of it and, if successful, also seeks the release of photographs depicting each of the defendants and certain graffiti.

Mr Silbert SC, who now appears on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, does not oppose the application, and Mr Johns, on behalf of Mr Sabatino, and Ms Sopworth on behalf of Mr Rintoull, each oppose it.

An affidavit sworn by Clinton Rintoull dated 1 February 2010 was tendered on his behalf. In it,…

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 Rintoull

Details

AGLC: R v Rintoull [2010] VSC 30
Case: [2010] VSC 30
Decision Date: 17 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rintoull, the issue before the court was an application to vacate a suppression order that prohibited the release of certain visual images of prisoners. The case centred on the balance between the right to freedom of expression and the need to protect the safety and security of prisoners, particularly those in protective custody. The application was brought to the Supreme Court of Victoria by the respondent, who sought to lift the suppression order to publish the images in question.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the scope and validity of the suppression order under the applicable legislation and the extent to which the safety and security concerns of prisoners, especially those in protective custody, could justify the suppression of potentially incriminating images. The court also needed to consider the public interest in the disclosure of the images and whether the suppression order was proportionate to the risks involved.

The court carefully examined the statutory framework governing suppression orders and the specific provisions that pertained to the protection of prisoners. It considered the evidence provided regarding the risk to the safety and security of the prisoners if the images were published. The court concluded that the suppression order was justified given the potential risks to the prisoners, particularly those in protective custody, and the public interest considerations that weighed against the release of the images. The application was dismissed, and the suppression order remained in place.

Orders