Williams and the Attorney- General for the State of Victoria

[2021] VCC 1443

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-11-01799

In the matter of Application for revocation of a Non-Custodial Supervision Order pursuant to s.31 Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997

Michael Williams (aka Michael Joseph and Mohammed Soliman)	Applicant
v
The Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (A-G)	Respondent
OTHER PARTIES
The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH)
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Vic)

---

JUDGE:	Her Honour Judge Cannon
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 and 8 June respectively
DATE OF RULING:	8 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Williams and the Attorney- General for the State of Victoria
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 1443

RULING
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:              Ruling - Application for prohibition on publication order

Ruling:  Application refused

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S. Delaney	VLA
For the Respondent	Mr L. McAuliffe	VGSO

For DFFH	Ms S. Varney	Ms R.Olds
For the DPP	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

1Having considered the evidence that has been placed before me, principally the sworn evidence of Mr Williams, as to his feelings of being distressed and depressed if there were any publication in relation to these proceedings. Also I note, he has said that he would become depressed if people were to access articles that have been online for a significant period of time.  I've also considered the evidence of Dr Khan and of Dr Shields, in relation to this particular topic, and the competing evidence that I've heard about Mr Williams’ avowed wish to set up a private tarot card reading business -  albeit that I was assured that he would not do so if he were advised not to. I am very concerned as to the prospect that he may well seek to do so, or may well seek to set up an alternative business, even if he were given a lawful direction not to, especially in view of the fact that he has breached lawful directions in the past in terms of travel. 

2In view of the index offences, and the avowed wish to set up a private environment which would make prospective victims vulnerable to repeat offending,  I am not satisfied that it is in the public interest to make a suppression order of the kind agitated for.  In those circumstances, I will refuse the application.

3He is being very well cared for by his treating team, and if does experience further distress or stress, as a result of my refusal to grant the order or any further publicity that there might be, from these proceedings, then he is in very good hands to have his symptoms dealt with.  But I'm afraid I'm just too concerned about the risks that he may well still pose to make an order which would enable him to go about the community anonymously, perhaps conducting himself in such a way that would put him and any particular others at significant risk.