Legal Research
Cases
Re WD (No 4)

Re WD (No 4)

Case [2024] VSC 144 28 March 2024

Standing

Suppression Order

Open Courts

Confidentiality Order

Administrative Law

Media & Entertainment Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S ECI 2023 06014

IN THE MATTER of an application in the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria
BETWEEN
SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, FAIRNESS AND HOUSING	Applicant
v
WD	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 February 2024
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS	26, 28 February 2024
DATE OF RULING:	28 March 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re WD (No 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 144

---

OPEN COURTS – Application for proceeding suppression order and order to preserve the confidentiality of documents – Application made by Secretary to the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing – Respondent 13-year-old girl charged with murder – Respondent on bail in a secure welfare service in the care of the Secretary – Evidence of previous media coverage of alleged offending and aftermath – Suppression order sought in relation to details of the respondent’s current and proposed residence and report of forensic psychiatric assessment – Whether suppression order necessary – Whether court precluded from making suppression order in light of existing statutory prohibition on publication – Utility of proposed suppression order – Confidentiality order with respect to specific documents made – Application for suppression order dismissed – Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), ss 4, 8, 17, 18 – Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), ss 289, 534 – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), r 28.05.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	S Fitzgerald	Department of Families, Fairness and Housing
For the respondent	A McGregor (solicitor)	Dowling McGregor
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	A Stephanides (solicitor)	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 12 February 2024, an application for a proceeding suppression order pursuant to sections 17 and 18(1)(a) and (c) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) was made by the Secretary to the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (“the Secretary”). The scope of that application was later broadened to include orders that certain documents remain confidential pursuant to rule 28.05(4) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (“the Rules”).
Broadly, the Secretary’s application sought to prohibit the disclosure by publication or otherwise of certain information relating to the circumstances, care and custody of a 13-year-old girl charged with murder (“WD”),[1] and to preserve the confidentiality of documents filed in this proceeding. The Secretary has parental responsibility for WD,[2] and WD is currently on bail and residing in a secure welfare facility in the Secretary’s custody.[3]
[1]A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of WD and to ensure compliance with s 534(1)(a)(ii) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic).
[2]Pursuant to a “care by Secretary” order made under s 289(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act.
[3]See further Re WD [2023] VSC 780; Re WD (No 3) [2024] VSC 14.
The Secretary has previously applied for a suppression order in relation…

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 Re WD (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Re WD (No 4) [2024] VSC 144
Case: [2024] VSC 144
Decision Date: 28 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re WD (No 4) involved an application by the Secretary to the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing for a suppression order and an order to preserve the confidentiality of certain documents. The respondent was a 13-year-old girl who had been charged with murder and was on bail, residing in a secure welfare service under the care of the Secretary. The application was made in light of previous media coverage of the alleged offending and its aftermath, and sought to suppress details of the respondent’s current and proposed residence, as well as a report of a forensic psychiatric assessment. The application was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether a suppression order was necessary and, if so, whether the court was precluded from making such an order due to existing statutory prohibitions on publication. The court also had to consider the utility of the proposed suppression order in protecting the interests of the respondent. The court examined the provisions of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), particularly sections 4, 8, 17, and 18, and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), specifically sections 289 and 534. Additionally, the court referred to the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), rule 28.05.

In delivering its judgment, the court noted the significant media interest in the case and the potential harm that could arise from the publication of sensitive information about the respondent. However, the court found that the statutory prohibitions on the publication of certain details already provided adequate protection, thereby precluding the need for a further suppression order. The court did, however, make an order to preserve the confidentiality of specific documents, recognising the importance of protecting the privacy and welfare of the respondent. Consequently, the application for a suppression order was dismissed.

The court's final orders included the preservation of confidentiality for specific documents but did not extend to a suppression order. The decision underscores the balance that must be struck between the public's right to know and the need to protect the vulnerable, particularly in cases involving minors charged with serious offences.

Orders