R v Sparos (No 3) - [2018] NSWSC 307

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 307
Hearing dates: 8 March 2018
Date of orders: 13 March 2018
Decision date: 13 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) The civilian Crown witness who has provided a statement in these proceedings under the pseudonym “Witness E”, dated 31 August 2017 (“the witness”), be allocated the pseudonym “Witness E”.

(2) The witness be referred to by the said pseudonym during the course of these proceeding, during the course of any other or further interlocutory proceedings conducted in connection with these proceedings, and for all other purposes of these proceedings.

(3) The order sought in Order 2 does not operate to prevent reference being made during the course of the proceedings to the true identity of the witness:

(a) for the purpose of determining any legal or procedural matter where the true identity of the witness is in issue;

(b) for the purpose of another witness in the proceedings identifying a person about whom he or she is giving evidence;

(c) for the purpose of the Court and/or the legal representatives of the Crown and the defence identifying the witness to any other witness in the proceedings; and

(d) as might otherwise be necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings.

(4) The true identity of the witness be suppressed until further order of the Court pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (“the Act”), together with any evidence, submission, discussion, document or information that might facilitate identification of the true identity of the witness, on the following grounds:

(a) the order necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice;

(b) the order is necessary to protect the safety of a person; and

(c) the order is otherwise necessary in the public interest.

(5) Without limiting the generality of the foregoing orders, any visual or other description or depiction of the physical appearance or other identifying feature of the witnesses be suppressed, until further order of the Court, pursuant to s 7 of the Act, on the grounds set out in Order 4(a), (b) and (c) above.

(6) Orders 4 and 5 are to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

(7) The Court be closed for the duration of the evidence of the witness in these proceedings.
(8) The representative of the Commissioner and officers of the New South Wales Police Force shall have liberty to make arrangements with the court officers and Sheriff’s officers regarding entry to and exit from the courtroom by the witness.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – suppression order
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW),ss 6, 7, 8
Cases Cited: Attorney General v Kaddour [2001] NSWCCA 456
Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52; [2012] NSWCCA 125
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Commissioner of Police…

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 Sparos (No 3) 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: [2018] NSWSC 307
Decision Date: 13 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant, Sparos, who was charged with a number of criminal offences. The prosecution sought to prevent the publication of certain material relating to the case, including the identity of a key witness, pursuant to a suppression order. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the suppression order was necessary to protect the administration of justice and to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The court considered whether the publication of the material in question would prejudice the trial or the safety of the witness.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate balance between the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. It considered the nature and extent of the material that was proposed to be suppressed, and the potential impact of its publication on the trial. The court found that the suppression order was necessary to protect the identity of the witness and to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. It concluded that the potential prejudice to the trial outweighed the public interest in freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court of Victoria made the suppression order sought by the prosecution. The order prohibited the publication of the identity of the key witness, as well as certain other material relating to the case. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the administration of justice and ensuring a fair trial for all parties. It noted that suppression orders were a necessary tool to achieve these objectives, but they should be used sparingly and only when necessary. The final orders of the court were that the suppression order remain in place until further order of the court.

Orders