SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND
Regina v DWF19 (No 1) [2019] NFSC 3
File numbers: SCC 1 of 2019
SCC 2 of 2019Judge: RARES J Date of judgment: 8 October 2019 Catchwords: COURTS AND JUDGES – application to suppress reasons for sentence – whether suppression of Court’s reasons a matter of practice or procedure under ss 169, 213 and 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2007 (NI) and or s 19(4) and (5) of the Supreme Court 1960 (NI) – principle of open justice – publication of reasons for judgment or sentence and open justice not matters of practice or procedure – where principle of open justice requires Court to sit in public and to allow public to be present and make fair reports of what occurred in open Court, in absence of any contrary law made by Parliament – absence of any statutory power of Court to supress reasons for judgment or sentence – Court’s duty to give reasons for imposing sentence that finally disposes of proceeding – where ss 169, 213 and 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2007 (NI) applied only to persons disseminating information from or about proceedings and did not apply of their own force to the Court – where Crown failed to apply for offender to be given pseudonym immediately after arrest to protect victims’ identity – where impact on victims and their families did not justify closing the Court when Court could give reasons for sentence that sufficiently satisfied requirements of open justice – where child victim not aware of full extent of crimes committed against her – where offender could be arraigned by excluding particular matter that it was necessary in the interests of justice not to reveal publicly from so much of count in indictment when read aloud in Court but where offender had full version of indictment to which he could enter plea Legislation: Criminal Code 2007 (NI) ss 108, 113, 118, 119, 122
Criminal Procedure Act 2007 (NI) ss 167F, 169, 213, 214
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AG, Pt VAA
Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable People) Ordinance 2018 (NI) ss 2, 4, item 59E in Sch 3
Sentencing Act 2007 (NI) ss 5, 119
Supreme Court Act 1960 (NI) s 19
Cases cited: Attorney‑General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440
Canadian Pacific Tobacco Company Ltd v Stapleton (1952) 86 CLR 1
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Christian [2019] FCAFC 5
Daubney v Cooper (1829) 10 B&C 237
Dickason v Dickason (1913) 17 CLR 50
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
John Fairfax & Sons Limited v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
Matthews v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 194
R v Christian (No 2) [2018] NFSC 5
R v Hamilton (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 277
Continue reading Regina v DWF19 (No 1)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Regina v DWF19 (No 1) [2019] NFSC 3
- Case
- [2019] NFSC 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the suppression of the court's reasons for sentence was a matter of practice or procedure under the aforementioned statutes. The court also needed to determine whether the principle of open justice and the publication of reasons for judgment or sentence were matters of practice or procedure. The court had to consider whether the principle of open justice required the court to sit in public and allow the public to be present and make fair reports of what occurred in open court, in the absence of any contrary law made by Parliament. The court also had to consider whether there was any statutory power for the court to suppress reasons for judgment or sentence, and what the court's duty was to give reasons for imposing a sentence that finally disposed of the proceeding.
The court found that the suppression of the court's reasons for sentence was not a matter of practice or procedure under the relevant statutes. The court held that the principle of open justice and the publication of reasons for judgment or sentence were not matters of practice or procedure either. The court held that the principle of open justice required the court to sit in public and allow the public to be present and make fair reports of what occurred in open court, in the absence of any contrary law made by Parliament. The court also held that there was no statutory power for the court to suppress reasons for judgment or sentence. The court's duty to give reasons for imposing a sentence that finally disposed of the proceeding was also considered.
The court ordered that the offender be identified by the pseudonym “DWF19”. The court held that the Crown had failed to apply for the offender to be given a pseudonym immediately after arrest to protect the victims' identity. The court held that the impact on the victims and their families did not justify closing the court when the court could give reasons for sentence that sufficiently satisfied the requirements of open justice. The court also held that the child victim was not aware of the full extent of the crimes committed against her. The court held that the offender could be arraigned by excluding a particular matter that it was necessary in the interests of justice not to reveal publicly from so much of the count in the indictment when read aloud in court, but where the offender had the full version of the indictment to which he could enter a plea.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The offender be identified by the pseudonym “DWF19”.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.