R v Tretheway

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.