Legal Research
Cases
Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd

Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd

Case [1999] NSWSC 366 23 April 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 366

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 12711/98

HEARING DATE(S): 20 April 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 April 1999

PARTIES :

Leesa Waters (Appellant)
Pacific Publications Pty Limited (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ms D. Sweeney

COUNSEL : P. Saidi (Appellant)
T. Hale (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: I.V. Knight (Appellant)
Bush Burke (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Children; child care proceedings in Children's Court; restrictions on naming child to whom proceedings relate; statutory offence; elements of offence; whether guilty knowledge such an element; statutory construction; Children (Care and Protection) Act, 1986, s 68

ACTS CITED: Children (Care and Protection) Act
Road Traffic Act, South Australia
Motor Traffic Act

CASES CITED: Borrie & Lowe, The Law of Contempt, 3rd ed.
Attorney General for New South Wales v Radio 2UE & Ors
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
R v Turnbull (1944) 44 SR 108
Proudman v Dayman (1943) 67 CLR 536
R v Walker (1994) 77 A Crim R 236
Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132
Griffin v Marsh (1994) 34 NSWLR 104

DECISION: Question raised by stated case answered in the negative; appellant to pay respondent's costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
STUDDERT J
Friday 23 April 1999
12711/98 LEESA WATERS v PACIFIC PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by way of stated case from a decision of a magistrate in dismissing a prosecution brought by the appellant, Leesa Waters, against the respondent, Pacific Publications Pty Limited. The appellant brought the proceedings against the respondent in her capacity as an officer of the Department of Community Services, alleging a breach by the respondent of s 68(1) of the Children (Care and Protection) Act, 1986. (I shall refer to that Act as “the statute”.)
2 The prosecution arose from the publication by the respondent in “New Idea” magazine of an article naming a child in respect of whom there had been proceedings under Pt 5 of the statute.
3 A copy of the article was annexed to the stated case. The article was published on 5 July 1997, and it was seemingly based upon an interview with the child’s mother, quoting constantly from this source. The article related to events eleven years previously when the person interviewed had been involved in a marital dispute with her husband. It appears from the article that on 8 July 1986 the husband shot and killed his mother-in-law, wounded his father-in-law, and held the child of the marriage as a hostage. He was subsequently imprisoned and the article referred to the impact of his criminal behaviour upon the child’s mother, who feared for the safety of the child and herself when the father was released from prison, and the trauma of the mother’s separation from her child, who, the article disclosed, “was placed in foster care” at some time subsequent to the…

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.

Continue reading Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 366
Case: [1999] NSWSC 366
Decision Date: 23 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waters v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Waters, and the defendant, Pacific Publications Pty Ltd, a publishing company. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to have the defendant restrained from naming a child who was the subject of child care proceedings in the Children's Court. The child was not named in the proceedings due to statutory provisions under the Children (Care and Protection) Act, 1986, which sought to protect the identity of children involved in such matters.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had contravened section 68 of the Children (Care and Protection) Act, 1986 by publishing the name of the child in question. The court was required to determine the elements of the statutory offence and whether 'guilty knowledge' was an essential element. The court also considered the principles of statutory construction in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act.

The court held that the statutory offence under section 68 of the Act required proof of four elements: the defendant's knowledge of the identity of the child, the publication of the child's identity, the child being the subject of care and protection proceedings, and the proceedings being before the Children's Court. The court found that 'guilty knowledge' was not a necessary element of the offence, as the statutory language did not explicitly require it. The court emphasised that the purpose of the Act was to protect the identity of children involved in such proceedings, and therefore, the statutory offence was primarily concerned with the act of publication, regardless of the defendant's knowledge. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant had indeed contravened the provisions of the Act.

The court ordered Pacific Publications Pty Ltd to cease and desist from publishing the name of the child involved in the care and protection proceedings. The court also directed the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for any harm caused by the publication. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory restrictions on naming children in care and protection proceedings to safeguard their privacy and well-being.

Orders