State of NSW v De La Torre
[2014] NSWSC 1212
•01 September 2014
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v De La Torre [2014] NSWSC 1212 Hearing dates: 1 September 2014 Decision date: 01 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: Access to the Supreme Court file granted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and solicitor and counsel representing Roy De La Torre
Catchwords: ACCESS - documents relevant to imminent sentence hearing Legislation Cited: Crimes (Serious Offenders) Act 2006 Cases Cited: State of NSW v Roy De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Roy De La Torre (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
G Hazlitt (Plaintiff)
B Thomson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2011/244925
Judgment
The DPP applies, by notice of motion filed in Court this morning, for access to the Court file. The DPP relies in support of his application on an affidavit of Mary Papanis of 22 August 2014.
This application arises by reason of an order made by Garling J in the substantive proceedings, State of NSW v Roy De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263, in which the plaintiff sought an extended supervision order pursuant to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act).
On 28 October 2011 Garling J made orders in respect of the defendant pursuant to the Act. His Honour also made a direction that, in the event that any application for access is made by a non-party to the matter in respect of any document contained on the Court file, the Registrar of the Court is to notify the parties to the summons and provide them with an opportunity to make submissions on whether access should be granted.
The sentence hearing in respect of the defendant is listed this Thursday before Mahony DCJ. The DPP seeks access to the Court file in this matter for the purposes of making submissions at that hearing.
Mr Hazlitt, who appears for the DPP, has informed me of the relevance of the material, which is apparent in any event from the material itself, which includes psychologic and psychiatric reports concerning the offender.
Mr Thomson, who is instructed by the Crown Solicitor's Office and who appears on behalf of the Attorney General, informs me that the psychological and psychiatric material on the Court file has been reviewed on behalf of the Attorney General to ascertain whether there is any material of a confidential nature. Those responsible for that review have satisfied themselves that there is no such material within the psychological and psychiatric reports. Indeed, he submitted, and I agree, that as a matter of fairness to the offender it is desirable that the sentencing judge have access to such material as is contained in the Court file.
Accordingly, I make an order that access to the Supreme Court file and its contents be granted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and solicitor and counsel representing the defendant.
**********
Decision last updated: 03 September 2014
0