SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Will (No 3) |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 395 |
Submissions Date: | 15 December 2017 |
DecisionDate: Reasons Date: | 15 December 2017 22 December 2017 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. These orders be made in Chambers. 2. The orders made on 15 December 2017 be amended as follows: (i) In Order 2, the words “the evidence given at” be inserted immediately before the words “the compulsory examination of David Will”; and (ii) In Order 6, the words “but no access to Reasons (No 2)” be added at the end. 3. The reasons in R v Will [2017] ACTSC 356 delivered on 29 November 2017 not be amended but the following addendum be added to those reasons: Addendum The Court’s attention was drawn to an error in [402] in that, contrary to what is there asserted, the Crown counsel did in fact have access to the transcript. See R v Will (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 395. 4. These Reasons not be published, other than to the parties, until the Conclusion of the Trial of Mr Will (as defined in the Orders made on 15 December 2017), except that they not be published to the members of the Prosecution Team (as also defined in the Orders made on 15 December 2017). |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURT AND JUDGES – Judgments and orders – non-publication orders and redactions to ensure a fair trial for the accused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURT AND JUDGES – amending orders – inherent power – slip rule – r 6906 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURT AND JUDGES – power to amend reasons – whether amendment of substance – addendum to be published with reasons |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6906 |
Cases Cited: | Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) David Will (Accused) Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) |
Representation: | Counsel Dr K Weston-Scheuber (Crown) Mr S Whybrow (Accused) Ms S Maharaj SC (Intervener) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Accused) Australian Government Solicitor (Intervener) | |
File Number: | SCC 86 of 2015 |
REFSHAUGE J:
On 29 November 2017, I dismissed an application by David Will, the accused, for a stay of…
Continue reading R v Will (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Will (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 395
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 395
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing these issues, the court considered the importance of protecting the integrity of the trial process and the rights of the accused. It found that certain orders and reasons should not be published to the public or to the prosecution team to safeguard the trial's fairness. The court also determined that the amendment of orders could be made under the inherent power of the court and the slip rule, provided it did not alter the substantive outcome of the case. Regarding the reasons for judgment, the court ruled that while the original reasons should not be amended, an addendum should be added to correct an error noted in the previous reasons, ensuring transparency and accuracy in the judicial record.
The court's orders included amendments to specific court orders made on 15 December 2017 to ensure clarity and accuracy. Additionally, the court ruled that the reasons delivered on 29 November 2017 should not be amended but should be supplemented with an addendum to correct a factual error. These reasons were not to be published to the public or the prosecution team until the conclusion of the trial, safeguarding the accused's right to a fair trial. The final orders ensured that the administration of justice was conducted with due regard for the rights of the accused and the integrity of the trial process.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. These orders be made in Chambers.
2. The orders made on 15 December 2017 be amended as follows:
(i) In Order 2, the words “the evidence given at” be inserted immediately before the words “the compulsory examination of David Will”; and
(ii) In Order 6, the words “but no access to Reasons (No 2)” be added at the end.
3. The reasons in R v Will [2017] ACTSC 356 delivered on 29 November 2017 not be amended but the following addendum be added to those reasons:
Addendum
The Court’s attention was drawn to an error in [402] in that, contrary to what is there asserted, the Crown counsel did in fact have access to the transcript. See R v Will (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 395.
4. These Reasons not be published, other than to the parties, until the Conclusion of the Trial of Mr Will (as defined in the Orders made on 15 December 2017), except that they not be published to the members of the Prosecution Team (as also defined in the Orders made on 15 December 2017).
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.