SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED and COCKMAN - [2018] FCWA 108

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED and COCKMAN [2018] FCWA 108
CORAM: THACKRAY CJ
HEARD: 30 MAY 2018
DELIVERED : 7 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S: PTW 6917 of 2014
BETWEEN: SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Applicant
AND
AARON PHILIP COCKMAN
Respondent
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

Catchwords:

PUBLICATION ORDER - Application to publish information concerning Family Court of Western Australia proceedings - Extracts of orders and expert report sought to be published - Coronial and police investigation ongoing - Consideration of s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Held not in the public interest for publication order to be made - Application dismissed - Redacted version of the judgment to be published.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr McCarthy
Respondent	:	No appearance
Intervener	:	Mr Leigh
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Mr Hooper SC

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Lavan
Respondent	:	No appearance
Intervener	:	State Solicitor's Office
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Legal Aid WA

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Farnell & Anor and Chanbua (2016) FLC 93-700
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280
Neubert & Neubert [2017] FamCA 903
Sedgwick and Rickards [2013] FCWA 52
West Australian Newspapers Ltd and Channel 7 Perth Pty Ltd and Cuzens (2016) FLC 93-690

1The Seven Network and affiliated media entities, including The West Australian, seek permission to publish an account of proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia (“FCWA”) relating to the family involved in the mass murder near Margaret River.
2The proceedings between Aaron Cockman (“the father”) and Katrina Miles (“the mother”) related to living arrangements for their four children following the breakdown of their marriage. Tragically, only the father is now alive and he consents to the order sought.

The order sought

3The applicants do not wish to publish a full account of the proceedings. Instead they seek permission to publish one snippet from consent orders made in June 2016 and a few snippets from a detailed report prepared by a child psychologist in February 2016. Although the applicants originally sought permission to publish the whole report, it was made clear at the hearing that they wish only to publish the few extracts identified in Exhibit 5.

Background

4The mother and father were married in 2003 and separated in May 2014. Their four children remained in the care of the mother.
5
In late November 2014, the mother commenced proceedings in the FCWA
6

7
The proceedings came before a FCWA Magistrate on circuit in Bunbury on 9 February 2015. The Magistrate made an order requesting the appointment of an independent lawyer for the children and also made a temporary order An order was also made for the parties to attend a Case Assessment Conference with a Family Consultant.
8

The parties were also directed to attend a Conciliation Conference with a Registrar in March 2015 to discuss…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED and COCKMAN and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] FCWA 108
Decision Date: 7 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Seven Network (Operations) Limited and Cockman applied for an order to publish information concerning proceedings before the Family Court of Western Australia. The information sought for publication included extracts from orders made in the family law case and an expert report prepared for the court. The application was made at a time when both a coronial and a police investigation were ongoing. The court was required to consider whether such publication would be appropriate, particularly in light of the ongoing investigations.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed publication of the information would breach the confidentiality provisions outlined in section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975. This section mandates that proceedings in the Family Court be held in private, and that information concerning those proceedings must not be published. The court had to weigh the public interest in the proposed publication against the statutory obligation to maintain confidentiality. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the impact of the ongoing investigations on the decision to allow or deny the application.

In determining the matter, the court emphasised the importance of protecting the privacy and confidentiality of family law proceedings, especially when investigations into related matters are ongoing. The court held that the publication of the information sought could potentially prejudice the coronial and police investigations. Given the seriousness of the ongoing investigations and the statutory mandate for confidentiality, the court denied the application for publication. The court concluded that maintaining the confidentiality of the information was paramount to uphold the integrity of both the legal proceedings and the investigations.

The final orders of the court were that the application to publish the information concerning the Family Court of Western Australia proceedings be dismissed. The court also directed that any further applications regarding the publication of such information should be made directly to the Family Court of Western Australia, which retains the authority to consider and decide on such matters in accordance with the statutory provisions.

Orders