SG v Director of Public Prosecutions

[2003] NSWCA 128

CITATION:	SG v DPP [2003] NSWCA 128
HEARING DATE(S):	16 May 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	16 May 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	Handley JA at 1; Hodgson JA; McColl JA
DECISION:	Leave to appeal refused. Summons dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTEMPT OF COURT - restraint of pre-trial publicity - protection of fairness and integrity of criminal trial - interlocutory relief - refused - leave to appeal refused
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	John Fairfax & Sons Limited v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
PARTIES :	SG v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40419/03
COUNSEL:	Applicant - P Kintominas Opponent 1 - S Kavanagh Opponents 2 & 3 - D R Sibtain
SOLICITORS:	Applicant - Benjamin & Khoury Opponent 1 - I V Knight Opponents 2 and 3 - Freehills

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	CLD 12955/02
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Grove J

40419/03
CLD 12955/02
HANDLEY JA
HODGSON JA
McCOLL JA


16 May 2003

SG v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS

Judgment – On application for leave to appeal

1 HANDLEY JA: The principles which must guide the Court in cases such as this are those stated by McHugh JA in John Fairfax & Sons Limited v PoliceTribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 at 476-7. Having regard to those principles the Court does not consider that this is a proper case for the grant of leave to appeal.

2 The trial of the claimant for murder will not take place for at least 10 months, possibly longer. While we do not doubt that this Court has power to grant injunctive and other relief to protect the integrity and fairness of a criminal trial, particularly a trial in the Supreme Court on serious charges such as murder, we do not consider that at this stage there is a sufficient threat to the integrity and fairness of a future criminal trial of the claimant to warrant interlocutory relief.

3 Some statements in the reasons for judgment of Grove J, read in isolation, might appear to deny the existence of such a jurisdiction in this Court. However these statements may well have been directed to the arguments before his Honour which appear to have concentrated on the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over the Local Court and the powers of this Court conferred by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act.

4 Leave to appeal is refused. The summons is dismissed with costs. The undertaking of the claimant’s solicitor to file the summons for leave to appeal has been noted.

******

Last Modified: 05/22/2003