R v Walker (No 1 - Suppression and related orders) - [2025] NSWSC 298

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Walker (No 1 – Suppression and related orders) [2025] NSWSC 298
Hearing dates: 24 March 2025, 26 March 2025
Date of orders: 24 March 2025, 26 March 2025
Decision date: 01 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Dhanji J
Decision:
Order made on 24 March 2025:
(1) Pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the Commissioner is required to produce the remaining subpoena documents responsive to paragraphs [3] and [6] of the Short Service Subpoena issued to the Commissioner by the Local Court of New South Wales on 27 March 2024 (save for any documents the subject of any claims of privilege or statutory restrictions) to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Orders made on 26 March 2025:
(1)   Pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the Commissioner is required to produce the remaining subpoena documents responsive to paragraphs [3] and [6] of the Short Service Subpoena issued to the Commissioner by the Local Court of New South Wales on 27 March 2024 (save for any documents the subject of any claims of privilege or statutory restrictions) to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
(2) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (CSNPO Act) and upon the grounds set out at ss. 8(1)(a), (b) and (e) there shall be no disclosure beyond these proceedings, by publication or otherwise, of any information, evidence, document or submissions regarding the specific monetary amounts paid to or on behalf of persons known in these proceedings as Witness B and Witness C by the NSW Police Force.
(3)   The foregoing orders do not prevent disclosures being made during the proceedings, to the extent required for the proper preparation and conduct of these proceedings.
(4)   Pursuant to ss 11 and 12 of the CSNPO Act, Order 2 is to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and is to remain in force for the duration of the life of the accused.
(5)   The Court be closed during the reception of any evidence, submissions or discussions, that identifies or might tend to identify the Witnesses B and/or D, except for the following:
(a)   the presiding Judge and court staff;
(b)   the accused;
(c)   the legal representatives of the accused;
(d)   the legal representatives for the Crown;
(e)   NSW Police Force officers involved in investigating the offences before the Court (unless they are later required to give evidence in these proceedings);
(f)   the legal representatives for the Commissioner; and
(g)   staff of the Department of Corrective Services and NSW Sheriff’s Office.
(6)   The accused shall not be permitted to retain a copy of the documents referred to in “Schedule A” to this Notice of Motion (the RRO).
(7)   The Court notes the accused is to be provided access to a laptop provided by Corrective Services NSW on the following bases:
(a)   The laptop is to contain a copy of the documents referred to in…

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 Walker (No 1 - Suppression and related orders) 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: [2025] NSWSC 298
Decision Date: 01 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Walker, was facing charges of murder, destruction or damage to property with intent to endanger life, and malicious wounding and infliction of grievous bodily harm. The prosecution sought suppression and related orders, including closed court orders and restricted retention orders, to protect the disclosure of monetary amounts paid to witnesses for their cooperation. The application was made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine whether these orders were necessary to protect the witnesses' identities and safety.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the reasons for the suppression orders sought should be protected from disclosure, as they contained confidential information. The court considered the public interest in open justice, which is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice in Australia. The court also needed to assess the meaning of "necessary" in the context of the suppression orders, and whether the reasons disclosed were sufficient to justify the orders.

The court found that the reasons for the suppression orders, which included the need to protect the witnesses' identities and safety, were indeed necessary. It was determined that the public interest in open justice could be balanced with the need to protect the witnesses in this case. The court concluded that the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the suppression and related orders. These orders were made to protect the disclosure of the monetary amounts paid to the witnesses and to ensure the safety of the witnesses and their families.

The final orders included suppression orders preventing the publication of the monetary amounts paid to the witnesses, closed court orders to prevent the attendance of unauthorised persons during the trial, and restricted retention orders to limit the retention of certain documents and information by the parties. These orders were made to protect the witnesses' identities and safety, while still allowing for a fair trial to take place.

Orders