1. Declare that the first defendant was in contempt of this Court by engaging in the conduct in the circumstances described in each of Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Statement of Charge annexed to the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 18 February 2020.
2. List the matter before me at 8.30am on 30 June 2020 for further directions as to the filing of evidence and listing of the matter for a sentencing hearing in respect of the contempt of court committed by the first defendant.
3. Reserve the question of costs.
Catchwords:
CONTEMPT — Criminal contempt — Intentional conduct — Interference with administration of justice — where deliberate and intentional destruction of items subject to search and seizure orders — where other contemptuous conduct
[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.
Continue reading Sun v He
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sun v He [2020] NSWSC 802
Case
[2020] NSWSC 802
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Sun v He involved a dispute where the respondent, He, was charged with criminal contempt for intentionally destroying items subject to search and seizure orders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Sun, sought an order for the respondent to be held in contempt of court for interfering with the administration of justice by deliberately destroying the items in question, as well as for other contemptuous conduct.
The court was required to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted criminal contempt. The central issue was whether the respondent's conduct was both deliberate and intentional and whether it amounted to interference with the administration of justice. The court had to weigh the evidence presented to establish the respondent's state of mind and the significance of the actions taken in the context of the legal proceedings.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the nature and extent of the respondent's conduct, the impact of the actions on the legal proceedings, and the respondent's state of mind. The court found that the respondent's actions were indeed deliberate and intentional, and that they constituted interference with the administration of justice. The court concluded that the respondent's conduct amounted to criminal contempt and ordered that the respondent be held in contempt of court. The court further directed that appropriate measures be taken to address the contempt.
The final orders included a formal finding of contempt against the respondent and a direction for the respondent to be punished for the contempt. The court's decision emphasised the importance of respecting the integrity of legal proceedings and the consequences of interfering with the administration of justice.