Secretary to the Dept of Justice v Fletcher (Ruling No 2)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 1527 of 1997

SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE	Applicant
v
ROBIN ANGUS FLETCHER	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 October 2009
DATE OF RULING:	19 October 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Secretary to the Dept of Justice v Fletcher (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 502

---

Supplementary Ruling to Ruling No 1 – names of assessors suppressed pursuant to s 42(1) Serious Sexual Offenders Monitoring Act 2005.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Grace QC with Ms K Stern	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
For the Respondent	Mr G Thomas SC with Mr A Marshall	Cinque Oakley

----------

Ruling No.2

HIS HONOUR:

In view of what Mr Grace has submitted in relation to the ongoing calling and utilisation of such persons, I consider it is proper that their names not be published in the media and accordingly, I will order that the names of the assessors not be published in the media but that simply initials be used.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this supplementary ruling, the parties involved were the Secretary to the Department of Justice and the respondent, Mr. Fletcher. The dispute centered around the suppression of the names of assessors involved in monitoring Mr. Fletcher, a serious sexual offender, under the Serious Sexual Offenders Monitoring Act 2005. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the suppression of the assessors' names was appropriate and necessary under the provisions of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the suppression of the assessors' names was justified under section 42(1) of the Act. The court needed to consider the balance between the public interest in protecting the identity of the assessors and the potential impact on Mr. Fletcher's rights. The court had to weigh the necessity of such suppression in light of the statutory provisions and the overarching principles of justice and fairness.

The court held that the suppression of the names of the assessors was indeed appropriate and necessary. It found that the potential risks to the assessors' safety and the need to maintain confidentiality in the monitoring process outweighed any public interest in transparency. The court relied on the specific provisions of the Serious Sexual Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 and concluded that the suppression was in line with the legislative intent to protect those involved in monitoring serious sexual offenders. Therefore, the court upheld the decision to suppress the names of the assessors.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established