CITATION: SG v DPP [2003] NSWCA 128 HEARING DATE(S): 16 May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE:
16 May 2003JUDGMENT 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 & ORSFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40419/03 COUNSEL: Applicant - P Kintominas
Opponent 1 - S Kavanagh
Opponents 2 & 3 - D R SibtainSOLICITORS: 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
- AGLC
- SG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] NSWCA 128
- Case
- [2003] NSWCA 128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it should grant leave to appeal against a decision refusing interlocutory relief to restrain pre-trial publicity. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the protection of the fairness and integrity of a criminal trial against potentially prejudicial media reporting.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The reasoning for this refusal was not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the Court was not satisfied that the requirements for granting such extraordinary interlocutory relief were met in this instance. The Court applied the principles relevant to balancing freedom of the press with the right to a fair trial, ultimately finding that the threshold for intervention had not been satisfied.
Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and the summons was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused. Summons dismissed with costs.
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.