Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick [2017] NSWSC 1151 Hearing dates: 21 August 2017 Date of orders: 21 August 2017 Decision date: 21 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: The fact of these pre-trial proceedings, the content of the evidence tendered and submissions made during the pre-trial proceedings is not to be published or otherwise disclosed until the return of a verdict by a jury or the finalisation of the principal criminal proceedings.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – suppression and non-publication orders – necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – pre-trial proceedings Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 Cases Cited: Not Applicable Texts Cited: Not Applicable Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The Crown
Leonard John Warwick (Accused)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
K McKay / G Christofi (Crown)
R Thomas (Accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Havas & Dib Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s): 2015/222068
EX TEMPORE Judgment
-
Application has been made this morning that the pre-trial proceedings before the Court today, and the contents of them, not be published until the conclusion of the principal trial.
-
The Court has the power, pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non‑Publication Orders Act 2010 (“the Act”), to prohibit the publication or other disclosure of information that comprises evidence or information about evidence given in proceedings before this court or information which tends to reveal the identity of the accused.
-
There are very limited grounds for making such an order because the Court is obliged, by s 6 of the Act, to take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice. It is clearly appropriate to keep in mind that a criminal trial involving the allegations which are made here is one of those criminal trials of notoriety in which the public have a real interest in open justice.
-
On the other hand, the legislation does provide grounds for making a non-publication order, including that such an order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice (s 8(1)(a) of the Act).
-
The accused applies for a non-publication order. He submits that, in the course of debate here, material will be discussed publicly and be the subject of evidence, by way of the tender of documents, which may or may not become evidence before a jury. He also submits that in order to enable a fair trial to take place in February 2018, it is appropriate to restrict the publication of pre-trial issues and debate so as to ensure that the jury, which is to be empanelled in February, is not influenced by material which will or may be extraneous to their consideration.
-
Having heard from counsel for the accused and the Crown Prosecutor, who does not oppose the making of an order, I am satisfied that a non-publication order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
-
Accordingly, I make the following order:
The fact of these pre-trial proceedings, the content of the evidence tendered and submissions made during the pre-trial proceedings, is not to be published or otherwise disclosed until the return of a verdict by a jury or the finalisation of the principal criminal proceedings.
**********
Amendments
25 June 2018 - Publication restriction lifted
- AGLC
- R v Warwick [2017] NSWSC 1151
- Case
- [2017] NSWSC 1151
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the suppression and non-publication orders were justified under the relevant provisions of the law. The court had to balance the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution and common law, against the right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The court also needed to consider whether the orders were the least restrictive means to achieve the desired outcome and whether they would be effective in preventing prejudice.
The court concluded that the suppression and non-publication orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. It found that the sensitive nature of the evidence, the potential for prejudicial publicity, and the high-profile nature of the case warranted the issuance of the orders. The court emphasised that the orders were not intended to suppress legitimate media scrutiny but to protect the integrity of the trial. It held that the orders were the least restrictive means to achieve this goal and would be effective in preventing prejudice. The court granted the orders, subject to certain conditions to ensure transparency and accountability.
The final orders of the court included the suppression and non-publication orders, which prohibited the media from reporting on certain aspects of the proceedings until the trial commenced. The court also ordered that the orders be reviewed at a later stage to ensure they remained necessary and proportionate. The court stressed the importance of balancing competing rights and the need for careful consideration when issuing such orders. The case underscored the court's commitment to ensuring a fair trial while protecting the rights of all parties involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.