R v Tretheway - [2025] NSWDC 322

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tretheway [2025] NSWDC 322
Hearing dates: 18 July 2025, 30 July 2025
Date of orders: 14 August 2025
Decision date: 14 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett ADCJ
Decision:
Application for suppression and non-publication order refused Subject to suppression of Some Evidence.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Possess child abuse material - Application to supress offender’s identity - Self-harm – reputational damage to extended family – Interim suppression and non-publication orders made by Local Court - Conviction appeal incompetent – Court having no jurisdiction – Severity appeal within Court’s jurisdiction.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act
The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act

Cases Cited:
AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3) 2019 NSWLR 1046, [2019] NSWCCA 46
Dacich v DPP (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 298
Nationwide News Pty Limited v Qaumi [2016] NSWCCA 97.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Reginald Tretheway – Applicant
The Crown – Respondent
Representation:
Applicant:
Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors Pty Ltd:
Respondent:
Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2024/176836
Publication restriction: Specified in the Orders. See para [41]

JUDGMENT

Reginald Tretheway was convicted in the Local Court, Glen Innes on 15 October 2024 of two offences of Possess Child Abuse Material contrary to s 91H(2) Crimes Act 1900. The offences were on 14 December 2023.
Upon conviction he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 15 months from 15 October 2024 until 14 January 2026, with a non-parole period of seven months expiring on 14 May 2025. Indicated sentences for the individual offences were nine months and twelve months respectively.
Proceedings in the District Court began as an appeal from the convictions, however because of the failure of the appellant to pursue this in a timely fashion the periods in which to do so expired and consequently this court was without jurisdiction to entertain them, though there it had jurisdiction to determine the appeals from the severity of the sentence.

The Incompetent Appeal from Conviction

The appellant was convicted on 15 October 2024 and thereupon lodged a notice of appeal against the convictions.
On 30 July 2024, an application for the appellant to be dealt with in accordance with s 14, Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 was refused and he pleaded guilty. The proceedings were adjourned to 15 October 2024 for sentence which was imposed as set out above.
On 3 February 2025 the appeals were before the District Court, Armidale and by consent were adjourned to 12 May 2025 to allow consideration of whether leave was needed to appeal, and whether the appeals or applications for leave to appeal were competent. It was agreed by the solicitor appearing for the appellant that the court had no jurisdiction for the appeals to this court under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.
In Dacich v DPP (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 298 Basten JA,…

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 Tretheway

Details

AGLC: R v Tretheway [2025] NSWDC 322
Case: [2025] NSWDC 322
Decision Date: 14 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the respondent, Tretheway, appealed against the decision of the Local Court to grant an interim suppression and non-publication order regarding his conviction for possessing child abuse material. The Local Court granted the order due to concerns about the potential for self-harm by the respondent and reputational damage to his extended family. The Crown did not oppose the suppression and non-publication order in relation to some of the evidence, but opposed the order in relation to the identity of the respondent.

The primary issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the suppression and non-publication order. The court held that the appeal was incompetent as the Court of Appeal did not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals against the Local Court’s decision to grant an interim suppression and non-publication order. However, the appeal against the severity of the sentence was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The court found that the Local Court did not have the power to grant an interim suppression and non-publication order as it was not authorised by statute. The court held that the appeal against the Local Court’s decision to grant the order was incompetent as it was not an appeal from a conviction or sentence. However, the appeal against the severity of the sentence was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. The court dismissed the appeal against the suppression and non-publication order and allowed the appeal against the severity of the sentence.

The court made an order that the application for suppression and non-publication order be refused, subject to suppression of some evidence. The court also made an order that the respondent’s conviction and sentence be quashed, and a new sentence be imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for suppression and non-publication order refused Subject to suppression of Some Evidence.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Tretheway [2025] NSWDC 322
Hearing dates:	18 July 2025, 30 July 2025
Date of orders:	14 August 2025
Decision date:	14 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett ADCJ
Decision:	Application for suppression and non-publication order refused Subject to suppression of Some Evidence.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Possess child abuse material - Application to supress offender’s identity - Self-harm – reputational damage to extended family – Interim suppression and non-publication orders made by Local Court - Conviction appeal incompetent – Court having no jurisdiction – Severity appeal within Court’s jurisdiction.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act
Cases Cited:	AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3) 2019 NSWLR 1046, [2019] NSWCCA 46 Dacich v DPP (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 298 Nationwide News Pty Limited v Qaumi [2016] NSWCCA 97.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Reginald Tretheway – Applicant The Crown – Respondent
Representation:	Applicant: Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors Pty Ltd: Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2024/176836
Publication restriction:	Specified in the Orders. See para [41]